Skip to main content

Andrews v. State

Citations

  • 652 S.W.2d 370

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • failing to define “prurient interest,” a term not statutorily defined, was not error although it may have acquired a technical meaning
  • trial court’s instruction held reversible error as “jury [could not] perform its function of being the exclusive judge of facts.”
  • “The general rule is that it is usually permissible to track the pertinent part of the charging instrument when preparing the application paragraph.”
  • “When the Legislature enacted the present Texas obscenity statute, it was attempting to comply with the Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California”
  • A The general rule is that it is usually permissible to track the pertinent part of the charging instrument when preparing the application paragraph. @
  • “We therefore hold that the Texas obscenity statute is not unconstitutional because statutory term “patently offensive” is defined in terms of a community standard of decency. The statute is neither vague nor overbroad because of this fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Teague, Onion, Clinton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

70 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.