Skip to main content

Cordova v. State

Citations

  • 733 S.W.2d 175
  • 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 543

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that testimony that appellant was “crazy drunk” was insufficient to require a mitigation instruction
  • stating that juror’s potential bias, when reviewing the testimony as a whole, did not show “that such would cause him to be unwilling or unable to obey the law or follow the oath of a juror”
  • evidence that defendant was intoxicated or “crazy drunk” when he committed the crime does not automatically mean he was then temporarily insane by reason of voluntarily ingesting intoxicating substance
  • evidence that defendant was intoxicated or “crazy drunk” when he committed the crime does not automatically mean he was then temporarily insane by reason of voluntarily ingesting intoxicating substance
  • evidence that defendant was “crazy drunk” insufficient to show temporary insanity
  • evidence that defendant was ″crazy drunk″ insufficient [ ] to show temporary insanity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Campbell, Clinton, Onion, Teague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

80 cases in this archive cite 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.