Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 04, 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.

Strahan v. State, Nos. 02-08-00384-CR ,   02-08-00385-CR   (Jan. 7, 2010)   (Walker, J., joined by Meier, J.).

Held:   (1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Strahan’s challenge for cause when a veniremember expressed concerns but agreed that she would hold the State to its burden; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Strahan’s motion to quash the indictment in Cause No. 14,236 because case law allows the State to allege that an offense occurred “on or about” a date certain and then to prove a date other than the one alleged as long as the date proved is anterior to the presentment of the indictment; (3) the record contains legally sufficient circumstantial evidence that the victim of the aggravated sexual assault was not Strahan’s spouse; (4) the prosecutor’s statement that he believed he had proven his case did not constitute improper jury argument; and (5) no motion for cumulation of sentences was required, nor was the lack of specificity of the cumulation order error. However, out of an abundance of caution, because the judgment in Cause No. 14,235 from Wise County lacks the name of the court, the date of conviction, the years of punishment assessed, and the nature of conviction in the cumulation order, the order is reformed to include this information.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «