Pearson v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. State

    384 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarded Mincey as changing the law. Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 1844, 64 L.Ed.2d 266 (1980). Nevertheless, it declined to give Mincey retrospective effect, relying on this language from United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 535, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 2316, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975):

  2. Montelongo v. State

    644 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    In Montelongo, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, but only after finding that the prosecutor's argument did not "inject new facts not in the record...," "express his opinion...

    Corbett v. State, 493 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Tocher v. State, 501 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971). This rule was abolished by the United States Supreme Court in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), which this Court has held is not retroactive. Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Because both the search and the trial took place before the decision in Mincey, when Brown was still the law, the trial court did not err in admitting the handle of the fishing rod. Pearson v. State, supra.

  3. Martin v. State

    610 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    In Martin v. State, 610 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), the 15-year-old consenter gave her consent only hours after learning of the murder of her mother and grandmother.

    Furthermore, it appears the search conducted here was of the murder scene. Although the record is not fully developed, it appears that the "common law `exigency rule' " of Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938, 948-950, and Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393, would apply because the search and trial in this case occurred before the decision in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). Pearson, supra.

  4. Aycock v. State

    863 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App. 1994)   Cited 12 times

    The two cases which mentioned border searches in relation to state law did not make a determination of whether or not such a search is an exception to the probable cause requirements of the Texas Constitution. (1) Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 1844, 64 L.Ed.2d 266 (1980); (2) Duff v. State, 546 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977); (3) Tamez v. State, 534 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976); (4) Sanders v. State, 482 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); (5) Guadian v. State, 420 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App. 1967); (6) Aycock v. State, 828 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.], vacated, 842 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); (7) Fuentes v. State, No. 14-83-00252-CR (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] September 18, 1986) (not designated for publication); and (8) Uribe v. State, No. 14-83-100-CR and 14-83-101-CR, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] December 22, 1983), reversed on other grounds, 688 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985), overruled, 833 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). (1) Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 1844, 64 L.Ed.2d 266 (1980); (2) Duff v. State, 546 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977); and (3) Sanders v. State, 482 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.C

  5. Janicek v. State

    634 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence State has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative

    However, Brown and the others cited in the margin are more properly regarded as a "murder scene exception" fashioned by the Court from the common law "exigency rule," and we now know from Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) that there is not any such exception in Fourth Amendment law. See Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). What we must determine is the meaning of the socalled "emergency doctrine," its vitality in Texas criminal jurisprudence and whether the circumstances shown in this record triggered its operation.

  6. State v. Philbrick

    436 A.2d 844 (Me. 1981)   Cited 43 times
    Holding detective's demonstration using front seat and dashboard of car and mannequins to depict shooting was not substantially similar and overly prejudicial when car parts had been altered and their original positions were not verified, the mannequins were not shown to be physically similar to the defendant or the victim, and the detective was not qualified to opine as an expert on blood spatter evidence forming part of his opinions

    The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas relied on Peltier to refuse to apply Mincey to a warrantless "homicide scene" search conducted in good faith before Mincey was decided. Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393, 396 (1979). The State urges a similar approach in the case before us.

  7. Swink v. State

    617 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 42 times
    In Swink v. State, 617 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981), the Court of Criminal Appeals declared that ยง 51.09 applies only to proceedings under Title 3 of the Family Code and not to criminal proceedings.

    In Mincey, the Supreme Court of the United States held that there is no "murder scene exception" to the Fourth Amendment and that the warrantless search of a defendant's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there. In Pearson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 587 S.W.2d 393, this Court concluded that the holding of Mincey would not be applied retroactively to a search and trial which had been conducted prior to the time of the decision in Mincey on June 21, 1978. In the instant case, the complained of search was conducted some six months before the decision in Mincey while the trial was held six months after the decision.

  8. Rodriguez v. State

    614 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)   Cited 30 times
    In Rodriquez v. State, 614 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981), this court indicated Hernandez and Johnson were "no longer the law" in light of Ybarra.

    Although those cases conflict with Ybarra, supra, and are no longer the law, at the time of the search in this case they were still good law. Cf. Pearson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 587 S.W.2d 393. In the opinion in Pearson we set out a lengthy excerpt from United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975), which examined the policy considerations that militated against giving retroactive effect to Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

  9. Ott v. State

    627 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 11 times

    However, since both the search involved in this case and the trial of the case occurred before Mincey was decided, the rule of Mincey is not applicable to this case. In Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979), it was held in a case where the search and the trial of the case occurred prior to the decision in Mincey, that that decision would not be held to be retroactive and that Mincey v. Arizona, supra, did not apply. In Swink v. State, 617 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981), the search was conducted some six months before the decision in Mincey while the trial was held six months after the decision.