Hunter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hunter v. State

844 S.W.2d 748, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1, 1993 WL 862

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 6, 1993

DocketNo. 377-91

StatusPublished

This text of 844 S.W.2d 748 (Hunter 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

Hunter v. State, 844 S.W.2d 748, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1, 1993 WL 862 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than twenty-eight grams and the jury, after finding an enhancement [749]*749paragraph true, assessed punishment at forty years confinement in the penitentiary and a fine of $10,000. This conviction was affirmed. Hunter v. State, 805 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether unadjudicated acts of misconduct are admissible at the punishment phase of a non-capital trial after the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § (3)(a), V.A.C.C.P.

During the punishment phase of trial, the State offered testimony of a police officer concerning a previous arrest of appellant for possession of a controlled substance. This arrest did not result in a final conviction. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that this evidence was admissible under the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § (3)(a), supra.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion was handed down before our decision in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 1037-91, delivered October 28, 1992, rehearing denied December 9, 1992). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Grunsfeld.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than twenty-eight grams and the jury, after finding an enhancement [749]*749paragraph true, assessed punishment at forty years confinement in the penitentiary and a fine of $10,000. This conviction was affirmed. Hunter v. State, 805 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether unadjudicated acts of misconduct are admissible at the punishment phase of a non-capital trial after the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § (3)(a), V.A.C.C.P.

During the punishment phase of trial, the State offered testimony of a police officer concerning a previous arrest of appellant for possession of a controlled substance. This arrest did not result in a final conviction. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that this evidence was admissible under the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § (3)(a), supra.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion was handed down before our decision in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 1037-91, delivered October 28, 1992, rehearing denied December 9, 1992). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Grunsfeld.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 S.W.2d 748, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1, 1993 WL 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack