Skip to main content

Burkett v. State

Citations

  • 127 S.W.3d 83
  • 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 8546
  • 2003 WL 22255589

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that six-month delay “did not detract from the complainant’s identification in this case because of her consistent testimony and ability to recall details”
  • holding that complainant had “adequate opportunity” to view perpetrator at time of offense when car was parked right next to defendant’s car, late-morning light was good, and complainant looked at defendant for about fifteen to twenty seconds
  • noting that complainant testified that she “got a good look at [appellant]” and that complainant had adequate opportunity to view perpetrator
  • noting that six-month period of time “did not detract from the complainant’s identification in this case because of her consistent testimony and ability to recall details
  • noting that complainant testified that she “got a good look at [appellant]” and that complainant had adequate opportunity to view perpetrator
  • noting that six-month period of time “did not detract from the complainant’s identification in this case because of her consistent testimony and ability to recall details

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Terry Jennings

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

9 cases in this archive are 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.