Yee v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Yee v. State

815 S.W.2d 691, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159, 1991 WL 111765

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 26, 1991

DocketNo. 636-90

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 815 S.W.2d 691 (Yee 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

Yee v. State, 815 S.W.2d 691, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159, 1991 WL 111765 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance — 3,4 methylenedioxy amphetamine — weighing at least 400 grams. The jury assessed his punishment at seventy-five years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections,¹ and a $100,000 fine. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow appellant to reopen his case and introduce additional evidence after both sides had rested and closed. Yee v. State, 790 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.], 1990).

This Court initially granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to consider two grounds: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to reopen his case; and whether the court of appeals erred in placing upon the trial court the burden of making a bill of exception or offer of proof.

Upon review of the briefs and arguments of both the State and appellant, we now conclude that the State’s petition was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the State’s petition for review is dismissed.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance — 3,4 methylenedioxy amphetamine — weighing at least 400 grams. The jury assessed his punishment at seventy-five years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections,¹ and a $100,000 fine. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow appellant to reopen his case and introduce additional evidence after both sides had rested and closed. Yee v. State, 790 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.], 1990).

This Court initially granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to consider two grounds: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to reopen his case; and whether the court of appeals erred in placing upon the trial court the burden of making a bill of exception or offer of proof.

Upon review of the briefs and arguments of both the State and appellant, we now conclude that the State’s petition was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the State’s petition for review is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 S.W.2d 691, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159, 1991 WL 111765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yee-v-state-texcrimapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack