Matthews v. State

971 S.W.2d 72, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1998 WL 391821
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 15, 1998
Docket1344-97
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 971 S.W.2d 72 (Matthews 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
Matthews v. State, 971 S.W.2d 72, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1998 WL 391821 (Tex. 1998).

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, he contended the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that a juvenile was an accomplice witness. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Matthews v. State, 965 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist], 1997). However, at the time of that decision, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Cr. App.1998). Accordingly,'we summarily grant appellant’s petition for review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the ease to that Court for reconsideration in light of Blake.

HOLLAND, J. not participating.

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

Related

Matthews v. State
999 S.W.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
971 S.W.2d 72, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 93, 1998 WL 391821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-texcrimapp-1998.