Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1/29/1997

Cantu v. State

Citations

939 S.W.2d 627
1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 118
1997 WL 31618

How courts have described this case

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

holding that in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, we view the statute as applied to appellant only
holding that defendant must object in order to preserve error where indictment not read and plea entered in jury's presence
holding that in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, we view the statute as applied to appellant only
holding that there is no significant difference between the Eighth Amendment’s protections and those provided by Article 1, Section 13
holding that defendant must object in order to preserve error where indictment not read and plea entered in jury’s presence
holding that argument is extreme or manifestly improper if there was willful and calculated effort on prosecutor’s part to deprive appellant of fair and impartial trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mansfield, Overstreet, Keller, Womack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

108 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.