Draughon v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant waived his complaint regarding the prosecutor = s comment that he represented a private interest by failing to object at trial
• holding that prosecution’s improper characterization of venire as “clients” was not preserved for appellate review because defense failed to object
• explaining that motion in limine does not entail adverse ruling on admissibility of evidence
• explaining that motion in limine does not entail adverse ruling on admissibility of evidence
• “The prosecuting attorney in a criminal action does not represent a private interest. . . . Any contrary suggestion, communicated to a juror or prospective juror in the case, therefore, is erroneous[.]”
• rejecting constitutional challenges to article 37.071(g) and (d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).