Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 9, 2006

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

In the Matter of D.J.H., No. 02-0005-039 (Jan. 12, 2006) (Cayce, C. J.; Gardner, J., dissents in part without opinion; Walker, J., concurs and dissents with opinion).

Held: The evidence is legally sufficient to establish the lack of effective consent and notice elements of criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s factual sufficiency complaint is waived under this court’s opinion in In re J.B.M., 157 S.W.3d 823, 827-28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc) and the supreme court’s opinion in In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1078 (1994).

Concurrence and Dissent: The evidence is legally sufficient. However, for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in J.B.M., Appellant’s failure to file a motion for new trial complaining that the evidence was factually insufficient to support his adjudication did not forfeit his factual sufficiency complaints on appeal.

Williams v. State, No. 02-0004-570 (Jan. 12, 2006) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Holman and Gardner, JJ.).

Held: The disclosure of Appellant’s two prior misdemeanor DWI convictions at the guilt phase of his felony DWI trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a trial before an impartial jury.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «

Updated: 14-Sep-2006