Boston v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Boston v. State

871 S.W.2d 752, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32, 1994 WL 81386

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 16, 1994

Docket1255-92

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 871 S.W.2d 752 (Boston v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal 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, 871 S.W.2d 752, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32, 1994 WL 81386 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of robbery and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years imprisonment after finding he was a habitual offender. This conviction was reversed. Boston v. State, 833 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.— Waco 1992).

The Court of Appeals held that Article 36.01, V.A.C.C.P., allows a defendant to make an opening statement before the State presents its case even if the State does not make an opening statement. However, we have since determined that Art. 36.01 allows a defendant to make an opening statement pri- or to presentation of the State’s case only when the State first makes one. Moore v. State, 868 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). The State’s petitions for discretionary review are therefore summarily granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the opinion in Moore, supra.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of robbery and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years imprisonment after finding he was a habitual offender. This conviction was reversed. Boston v. State, 833 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.— Waco 1992).

The Court of Appeals held that Article 36.01, V.A.C.C.P., allows a defendant to make an opening statement before the State presents its case even if the State does not make an opening statement. However, we have since determined that Art. 36.01 allows a defendant to make an opening statement pri- or to presentation of the State’s case only when the State first makes one. Moore v. State, 868 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). The State’s petitions for discretionary review are therefore summarily granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the opinion in Moore, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 S.W.2d 752, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32, 1994 WL 81386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-v-state-texcrimapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack