Smith v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Fountain v. State

    401 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. App. 2013)   Cited 21 times
    Holding evidence of defendant's proximity to complainant was legally sufficient to support murder conviction where, in addition to other facts, defendant was last-known person to see child alive and child was in defendant's care night before and day of child's disappearance

    Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it demonstrates appellant's history of becoming angry and physically violent toward Kendrick whenever he would cry, or wet or soil his pants. See Fisher, 851 S.W.2d at 304 (considering complainant's “strained relationship with appellant” prior to her disappearance in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 462 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998), vacated & remanded on other grounds,5 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (considering appellant's “well established history” of violently assaulting complainant in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder).

  2. Fountain v. State

    NO. 14-11-00960-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 23, 2013)

    Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it demonstrates appellant's history of becoming angry and physically violent toward Kendrick whenever he would cry, or wet or soil his pants. See Fisher, 851 S.W.2d at 304 (considering complainant's "strained relationship with appellant" prior to her disappearance in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 462 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998), vacated & remanded on other grounds, 5 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (considering appellant's "well established history" of violently assaulting complainant in concluding that State's evidence satisfied corpus delicti of murder).

  3. Smith v. State

    5 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence applies even when evidence is admitted under Art. 38.36.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 1992). We granted discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 38.36(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure abrogates the trial court's duty to comply with Rules of Criminal Evidence 404(b) and 403.

  4. Martinez v. State

    993 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that if State is offering the evidence, then it has the burden of establishing that the proffered hearsay is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule

    Upon a finding that a substantial right has been violated, we employ the following analysis as laid out by the San Antonio Court of Appeals: Tex. R. Evid. 103(a); Smith v. State, 968 S.W.2d 452, 460-61 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. filed).King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed. 1557, 1572 (1946)).