Skip to main content

Atkins v. State

Citations

  • 951 S.W.2d 787
  • 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 69
  • 1997 WL 225857

How courts have described this case

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

  • analyzing A improper question in which the hypothetical was used seeking to commit the veniremembers to the specific facts of the case @
  • applying the standard of abused discretion to decision involving voir dire
  • where appellant’s brief filed after the petition was granted reworded his ground for review, addressing the issue as it was presented in the petition for which review was granted, rather than the reworded ground in the brief
  • question phrased in manner similar to that in this case
  • question phrased in manner similar to that in this case
  • A Because the law allows the use of a hypothetical to ascertain the views of prospective jurors on issues pertinent to a fair determination of the case, it must be determined whether the hypothetical was used to explain the law or was used to commit the jurors to particular circumstances. @

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keller, Baird, McCormick, Mansfield, Overstreet

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

96 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 named Atkins v. State

175 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.