Crenshaw, Bradley Kelton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court’s inclusion of per se definition of intoxication did not expand the allegations against the defendant and was not error
• holding that the trial court’s inclusion of per se definition of intoxication did not expand the allegations against the defendant and was not error
• holding that reversible error occurs in giving an abstract instruction only when the instruction is an incorrect or misleading statement of law that the jury needs to understand in order to implement the commands of the application paragraph
• concluding that where a complained-of definition only appeared “in the abstract section of the jury charge, and it was not incorporated into the application paragraph” and “the application paragraph tracked the language information,” there was no charging error
• concluding that the inclusion of an unpled abstract definition of intoxication in the jury charge of a prosecution for D.W.I. was not error because it “did not expand the allegations against” the defendant absent incorporation into the application paragraph
• indicating that blood alcohol concentration evidence is relevant to the impaired and per se theories of intoxication

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).