Skip to main content

Baird v. State

Citations

  • 398 S.W.3d 220
  • 2013 WL 1890722
  • 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 736

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding statutes are interpreted according to rules of grammar and assuming every word was meant to serve a discrete purpose
  • noting that, at a suppression hearing, “a trial judge is free to believe or disbelieve any part of the testimony as he sees fit”
  • explaining that the trial court is the “sole arbiter” of factual/credibility disputes
  • statute is ambiguous when the language it employs is “reasonably susceptible to more than one understanding”
  • statute is ambiguous when the language it employs is \reasonably susceptible to more than one understanding\
  • affirming denial of suppression where defendant hired woman to care for his dog while away, invited her to help herself to anything, told her to keep the bedroom door closed to keep the dog out, and did not expressly forbid her from using his computer, on which she found child pornography

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Alcala, Keller, Meyers, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

21 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.