Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 6/28/2017

Ex parte Ingram

Citations

533 S.W.3d 887

How courts have described this case

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

holding that freedom of speech does not extend to speech proscribed by subsection (c) “because offers to engage in illegal transactions such as sexual assault of a minor are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection”
noting that “a facial challenge to the statute defining the offense can be brought on pretrial habeas”
clarifying that jury-charge instruction on anti-defensive issue is appropriate when some evidence at trial raises it
explaining that pretrial habeas is generally unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial
deciding that persons “represent” themselves “to be under the age [of] 17 if, in view of the totality of the speaker’s statements, (1) the speaker intended to state [their] age as a matter of fact, to be accepted as true and (2
noting “‘Overbreadth’ is a First Amendment doctrine that allows a facial challenge to a statute even though the statute might have some legitimate applications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alcala, Hervey, Iia, Keasler, Keel, Keller, Newell, Otherwise, Richardson, Walker, Yeary

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

56 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.