Nichols v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Nichols v. State

845 S.W.2d 908, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 24, 1993 WL 19964

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 3, 1993

DocketNo. 1273-91

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 845 S.W.2d 908 (Nichols 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

Nichols v. State, 845 S.W.2d 908, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 24, 1993 WL 19964 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of theft and sentenced by the jury to four years confinement plus a $1,500 fine. Her conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Nichols v. State, 815 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1991).

In her sole ground for review, Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the trial court had authority to allow a juror to question a witness during trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that the trial court errs when it allows jurors to propound questions to witnesses, and such error is not subject to a harm analysis. Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Morrison. Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Morrison.

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 theft and sentenced by the jury to four years confinement plus a $1,500 fine. Her conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Nichols v. State, 815 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1991).

In her sole ground for review, Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the trial court had authority to allow a juror to question a witness during trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that the trial court errs when it allows jurors to propound questions to witnesses, and such error is not subject to a harm analysis. Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Morrison. Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Morrison.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 S.W.2d 908, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 24, 1993 WL 19964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack