Riley v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Bachus v. State

    803 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. App. 1991)   Cited 17 times
    Reversing where appellant timely objected to the judicial comment "I now find that there is evidence of a conspiracy" in a jury trial for conspiracy

    Estrada v. State, Tex.Crim.App. 422 S.W.2d 453 [1968], and Riley v. State, Tex.Crim.App. 406 S.W.2d 438 [1966]. Cline, 463 S.W.2d at 444-45.

  2. Cotton v. State

    686 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 183 times
    Holding TABC provision making it illegal to sell beer to persons "showing evidence of intoxication" was unconstitutionally vague because symptoms like slurred speech and bloodshot eyes may appear in intoxicated as well as non-intoxicated persons

    (e) a staggered gait:Dickey v. State, 552 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977); Casey v. State, 414 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967); Riley v. State, 406 S.W.2d 438 (Tex.Cr.App. 1966); Evans v. State, 402 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Cr.App. 1966); Hooker, supra; Lacy v. State, 374 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Cr.App. 1963); and (f) the odor of alcohol on the breath:

  3. Olson v. State

    505 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    Aside from general objections, we construe the objections to the documentary evidence to be essentially these: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to show that appellant was the same person convicted in the former cases; (2) That the convictions were too remote; and (3) That they were void because it was not shown that appellant had counsel when he plead guilty. (1) The evidence of the number of his driver's license, and such a certificate from the Department of Public Safety as was admitted in the case at bar, was held sufficient prima facie proof of appellant's identity in Rice v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 367, 292 S.W.2d 114; Riley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d 438. (2) Article 37.07, Sec. 3, V.A.C.P., authorizes proof of the criminal record of an accused after a verdict of guilty. There is no limitation as to remoteness.

  4. Cline v. State

    463 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 14 times

    Further, any error which may have existed was cured by the court's instruction to the jury that they were not to consider any statements of the court. Estrada v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 453, and Riley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d 438. The seventh and eighth grounds of error are overruled.