EDIC v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

EDIC v. State

351 S.W.3d 877, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1131, 2011 WL 3687889

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided August 24, 2011·No. PD-0623-11·Published

Opinion

MEYERS, J.,

dissenting.

I would grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review and affirm the court of appeals. While I agree with the decision of the court of appeals, I do not feel that the issue raised by Appellant was fully addressed in the opinion. We have determined that a threat under the retaliation statute can be communicated to the person being threatened through a third party, however, we have never considered whether the complainant must have knowledge of the threat. Because this is an issue we should deliberate, I respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision to refuse Appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

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

MEYERS, J.,

dissenting.

I would grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review and affirm the court of appeals. While I agree with the decision of the court of appeals, I do not feel that the issue raised by Appellant was fully addressed in the opinion. We have determined that a threat under the retaliation statute can be communicated to the person being threatened through a third party, however, we have never considered whether the complainant must have knowledge of the threat. Because this is an issue we should deliberate, I respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision to refuse Appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

EDIC v. State, 351 S.W.3d 877, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1131, 2011 WL 3687889 (Tex. 2011).

Pincite

351 S.W.3d 877 (EDIC v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.