State v. Barber

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

State v. Barber

802 S.W.2d 696, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12, 1991 WL 7991

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 30, 1991

Docket1075-89

StatusPublished

This text of 802 S.W.2d 696 (State v. Barber) 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

State v. Barber, 802 S.W.2d 696, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12, 1991 WL 7991 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellants of engaging in organized crime. The court assessed punishment at five years confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed appellants’ convictions on sufficiency grounds. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1984). We reversed that ruling and remanded the cause for consideration of appellants’ remaining points of error. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed appellants’ convictions after concluding that the State failed to rebut the presumption of harm arising from an improper jury separation under former Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 35.23 (amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 825, § 1, eff. September 1, 1989). Barber v. State, 773 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1989). The State petitioned this Court for review which was granted on September 27, 1989.

We have reconsidered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. The State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent. CAMPBELL and MALONEY, JJ., not participating.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellants of engaging in organized crime. The court assessed punishment at five years confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed appellants’ convictions on sufficiency grounds. Barber v. State, 668 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1984). We reversed that ruling and remanded the cause for consideration of appellants’ remaining points of error. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed appellants’ convictions after concluding that the State failed to rebut the presumption of harm arising from an improper jury separation under former Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 35.23 (amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 825, § 1, eff. September 1, 1989). Barber v. State, 773 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1989). The State petitioned this Court for review which was granted on September 27, 1989.

We have reconsidered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. The State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent. CAMPBELL and MALONEY, JJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 S.W.2d 696, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12, 1991 WL 7991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barber-texcrimapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack