Bolton v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Harrison v. State

    No. 14-10-00254-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 17, 2011)   Cited 8 times

    See Maxwell v. State, 10 S.W.3d 785, 787-88 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.) (rejecting argument that without benefit of a previous line-up an in-court identification of defendant who is sitting at counsel table violates due process); Guerrero v. State, 838 S.W.2d 929, 931-32 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1992, no pet.) (refusing to turn justice system into a game of "Where's Waldo?" by allowing defendant to sit in the audience while witness makes identification); see also Bolton v. State, 2008 WL 4958453, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Carrasquillo v. State, 2003 WL 1848755, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (not designated for publication); but see U.S. v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655, 658 (5th Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is obviously suggestive to ask a witness to identify a perpetrator in the courtroom when it is clear who is the defendant." (citing U.S. v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 8938, 941, 943 (2d Cir. 1984)).

  2. Willis v. State

    No. 04-09-00349-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2010)   Cited 3 times
    In Willis, a case similar to the instant case, the defendant wrote a letter to a police officer in which he proposed a plea bargain agreement.

    It is a well-accepted principle that evidence of an accused's post-commission conduct is admissible where the conduct "indicates a `consciousness of guilt' [and] may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, no pet.) (citation omitted); see also Bolton v. State, No. 04-07-00833-CR, 2008 WL 4958453, at *5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Nov. 19, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). A trier of fact could reasonably consider the content of Willis's voluntary communication as an admission of the crime charged.