Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of October 18, 2010

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 (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Winningham v. State,    No. 02-07-00389-CR    (Oct. 21, 2010)    (op. on PDR) (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:   In this circumstantial evidence case—viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict—we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found that the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence at trial were sufficient to establish the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dissent:    The evidence is not sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia and Brooks v. State to support Appellant's murder conviction.

In re M.C.S., Jr.,   No. 02-09-00332-CV    (Oct. 21, 2010)    (Livingston, C.J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).

Held:   Appellant's oral and written stipulations comprised sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment of delinquency for cruelty to nonlivestock animals because the stipulations showed that appellant burned a bat that was in a glass jar. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.092(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Appellant waived his complaint about allegedly insufficient warnings given at the beginning of his adjudication hearing by not objecting to the warnings before he agreed to the evidentiary stipulations. Also, the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion for new trial because it had a sufficient basis to determine that his written stipulation was voluntary. Finally, the trial court was not required to obtain appellant's oral reaffirmation of the stipulation of evidence at the adjudication hearing.

Gunter v. State,   No. 02-09-00315-CR    (Oct. 21, 2010)    (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).

Held:    The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show that appellant's driving while intoxicated offense occurred in Texas because witnesses testified about events occurring in Fort Worth and Tarrant County, and there is no evidence that the offense occurred outside of Texas. The evidence is also sufficient to prove that appellant operated a motorcycle while intoxicated because officers testified that appellant told them he drove the motorcycle, and we must defer to the jury's implicit rejection of conflicting evidence. Finally, appellant was not entitled to an extraneous offense limiting instruction in the guilt-phase jury charge because he did not request the instruction when the evidence was admitted.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «