Boston v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Boston v. State

880 S.W.2d 259, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1761, 1994 WL 330618

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 13, 1994

DocketNo. 10-90-223-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 880 S.W.2d 259 (Boston v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boston v. State, 880 S.W.2d 259, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1761, 1994 WL 330618 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On original submission we reversed Darrell Lee Boston’s conviction for robbery, holding that the trial court’s refusal to allow Boston to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence was error, and that such error was not harmless.¹ [260]*260Subsequently, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Moore v. State, held that article 86.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not afford criminal defendants the right to make an opening statement prior to presentation of the State’s case when the State does not make an opening statement.² As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeals summarily granted the State’s petition for discretionary review, reversed the judgment of this court in Boston and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of their opinion in Moore.3

In Moore, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 86.01(b) is inapplicable in cases in which the State waives opening statement.⁴ On original submission, Boston raised a single point of error complaining only of the trial court’s refusal to allow him to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence pursuant to article 36.01(b). However, as in Moore, the State waived opening statement in this ease. Furthermore, Boston has not filed a brief on remand urging other grounds for reversal in light of Moore.5 Consequently, in accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On original submission we reversed Darrell Lee Boston’s conviction for robbery, holding that the trial court’s refusal to allow Boston to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence was error, and that such error was not harmless.¹ [260]*260Subsequently, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Moore v. State, held that article 86.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not afford criminal defendants the right to make an opening statement prior to presentation of the State’s case when the State does not make an opening statement.² As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeals summarily granted the State’s petition for discretionary review, reversed the judgment of this court in Boston and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of their opinion in Moore.3

In Moore, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 86.01(b) is inapplicable in cases in which the State waives opening statement.⁴ On original submission, Boston raised a single point of error complaining only of the trial court’s refusal to allow him to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence pursuant to article 36.01(b). However, as in Moore, the State waived opening statement in this ease. Furthermore, Boston has not filed a brief on remand urging other grounds for reversal in light of Moore.5 Consequently, in accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 S.W.2d 259, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1761, 1994 WL 330618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-v-state-texapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack