Newing v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Newing v. State

989 S.W.2d 757, 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, 1999 WL 228787

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 002-99

StatusPublished

This text of 989 S.W.2d 757 (Newing 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

Newing v. State, 989 S.W.2d 757, 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, 1999 WL 228787 (Tex. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Newing v. State, No. 06-97-00045-CR (Tex.App.—Texarkana, delivered October 2, 1998). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review raising two grounds for review.

We grant part of Appellant’s first ground for discretionary review, specifically, Appellant’s contention that “the Court of Appeals clearly erred in concluding that the issue of the trial court’s improper limitation of Appellant’s cross examination of the complainant was not preserved.” The separate issue raised in ground one concerning the merits [758]*758of the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination, and ground two, are refused without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Newing v. State, No. 06-97-00045-CR (Tex.App.—Texarkana, delivered October 2, 1998). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review raising two grounds for review.

We grant part of Appellant’s first ground for discretionary review, specifically, Appellant’s contention that “the Court of Appeals clearly erred in concluding that the issue of the trial court’s improper limitation of Appellant’s cross examination of the complainant was not preserved.” The separate issue raised in ground one concerning the merits [758]*758of the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination, and ground two, are refused without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

989 S.W.2d 757, 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, 1999 WL 228787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newing-v-state-texcrimapp-1999.