Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Hinton v. State

626 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hinton v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Gilmore v. State

    666 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 34 times
    Concluding the evidence was not hearsay in part because the trial court instructed the jury as to the proper purpose for considering the evidence and explained that the evidence should not be considered for the truth of the matters asserted therein

    Hackbarth v. State, 617 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981). See also Hinton v. State, 626 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982). Moreover, there was no evidence suggesting that the blood sample was tampered with or misplaced after it left Dr. Ray's sight.

  2. Carraway v. State

    642 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 2 times

    The Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held the admission of such testimony is proper and does not necessarily show commission of extraneous offenses. Hinton v. State, 626 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982). Appellant also complains of trial court error in the admission of the confession because, according to appellant, it shows the commission of the murder of Mrs. Johnson, which was an extraneous offense.