Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 22, 2011

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.

In re B.G.D.,   No. 02-09-00402-CV    (Aug. 25, 2011)   (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:   Maternal grandmother had standing pursuant to family code section 153.432. However, the trial court violated the law of the case doctrine by granting visitation to maternal grandmother over parent's objections. The Texas Supreme Court held that the evidence admitted at the temporary orders hearing was insufficient to overcome the presumption that a fit parent acts in his children's best interest, and the evidence admitted at the trial on the merits did not sufficiently differ from that introduced at the temporary orders hearing.

Price v. State,   No. 02-10-00145-CR    (Aug. 25, 2011)   (Livingston, C.J., joined by William Brigham, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment); Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of extraneous offenses under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b). Throughout the trial, Appellant questioned and emphasized the issue of the identity of the person who committed aggravated robbery. Appellant has not challenged whether the extraneous offenses that the trial court admitted are sufficiently similar to the charged offense to show a connection between the crimes.

Dissent:   The majority does not address Appellant's contention that he did not go beyond the State's questioning the bases of witnesses' identification and therefore did not open the door to the admission of extraneous offenses.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «