Homan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Homan v. State

962 S.W.2d 599, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 44, 1998 WL 104564

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 11, 1998

DocketNo. 164-97

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 962 S.W.2d 599 (Homan 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

Homan v. State, 962 S.W.2d 599, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 44, 1998 WL 104564 (Tex. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Appellant was charged on July 18, 1996, with capital murder and bond was set at $75,000. Appellant filed a motion seeking to reduce the amount of the bond. On July 25, 1996, at the hearing on the motion, defense counsel attempted to question appellant for the limited purpose of determining his ability to make bond. The State objected, arguing that if appellant testified, he should be subject to unlimited cross-examination, including the facts of the instant case. The trial court agreed. On that basis, appellant did not testify and made a timely bill of exception.

In an accelerated appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding: “[A] defendant may testify in a bail hearing regarding his ability to make bail without subjecting himself to cross-examination on the nature and circumstances of the offense with which he is charged.” Ex parte Homan, 968 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996). The State petitioned for discretionary review on January 30, 1997. Review was granted on October 1, 1997. Oral argument was heard on January 28,1998.

It has come to our attention that on December 11, 1996, appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. Therefore, our October 1,1997 decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the State’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Appellant was charged on July 18, 1996, with capital murder and bond was set at $75,000. Appellant filed a motion seeking to reduce the amount of the bond. On July 25, 1996, at the hearing on the motion, defense counsel attempted to question appellant for the limited purpose of determining his ability to make bond. The State objected, arguing that if appellant testified, he should be subject to unlimited cross-examination, including the facts of the instant case. The trial court agreed. On that basis, appellant did not testify and made a timely bill of exception.

In an accelerated appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding: “[A] defendant may testify in a bail hearing regarding his ability to make bail without subjecting himself to cross-examination on the nature and circumstances of the offense with which he is charged.” Ex parte Homan, 968 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996). The State petitioned for discretionary review on January 30, 1997. Review was granted on October 1, 1997. Oral argument was heard on January 28,1998.

It has come to our attention that on December 11, 1996, appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. Therefore, our October 1,1997 decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the State’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 S.W.2d 599, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 44, 1998 WL 104564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homan-v-state-texcrimapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack