Skip to main content

Blankenship v. State

Citations

  • 785 S.W.2d 158
  • 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 29
  • 1990 WL 20368

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that article 21.07 “does not require that the person be commonly known by the name alleged”
  • rejecting appellant’s fatal variance argument when indictment identified “Armando Sanroman” as complainant but the State at trial established identity as “Rudolfo Sanroman”; evidence established that complainant was known by both names
  • “If there is evidence that the person was known by the name alleged in the indictment, then the issue is raised and is properly left for the jury to determine.”
  • evidence sufficient because victim was known by the name alleged in the indictment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Campbell, Teague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

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.