Skip to main content

Cruz v. State

Citations

  • 225 S.W.3d 546
  • 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689
  • 2007 WL 1610466

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that because the prosecutor’s statements to the jury referred to the defendant’s own written statement, which was in evidence, they were not a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify
  • holding that prosecutor’s statements to the jury referred to the defendant’s own written statement which had been admitted into evidence and were therefore not a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify
  • concluding that it was clear from the record that prosecutor’s statements to jury referred to defendant’s own written statement, which had been admitted into evidence, and therefore were not comment on defendant’s failure to testify
  • stating that only essential requirement to ensure preservation is timely, specific request that is refused by trial court
  • stating that only essential requirement to ensure preservation is timely, specific request that is refused by trial court
  • stating that only essential requirement to ensure preservation is timely, specific request that is refused by trial court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Womack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Cruz v. State

215 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.