Rivera v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Rivera v. State

696 S.W.2d 582, 28 Educ. L. Rep. 289, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1457

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 25, 1985

DocketNo. 141-85

StatusPublished

This text of 696 S.W.2d 582 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. State, 696 S.W.2d 582, 28 Educ. L. Rep. 289, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1457 (Tex. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, a panel majority of the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that it was not reversible error to require appellant to demonstrate on an anatomically correct doll how he had placed his mouth on the penis of the complainant. Rivera v. State, 684 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.App.—Hou. [14th] 1984). However, our review of the record does not reveal that appellant ever demonstrated the act itself although instructed to do so by the prosecutor. Therefore, our refusal of appellant’s petition for discretionary review is not to be taken as an approval of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals on this ground of error.

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, a panel majority of the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that it was not reversible error to require appellant to demonstrate on an anatomically correct doll how he had placed his mouth on the penis of the complainant. Rivera v. State, 684 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.App.—Hou. [14th] 1984). However, our review of the record does not reveal that appellant ever demonstrated the act itself although instructed to do so by the prosecutor. Therefore, our refusal of appellant’s petition for discretionary review is not to be taken as an approval of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals on this ground of error.

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 S.W.2d 582, 28 Educ. L. Rep. 289, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-state-texcrimapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack