Skip to main content

Ford v. State

Citations

  • 305 S.W.3d 530
  • 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1440
  • 2009 WL 3365661

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “may,” as used in Article 28.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, “suggested, but did not require”
  • holding that if an issue is not preserved, appellate courts should not address the merits of that issue
  • holding that unsworn offense report contained “sufficient indicia of reliability” to serve as basis for trial court’s ruling denying motion to suppress evidence
  • recognizing that the need to preserve objections is founded upon the policy of affording the trial court the first opportunity to correct purported mistakes
  • holding that a “trial court may conduct the [suppression] hearing based on motions, affidavits or testimony, but there is nothing in [article 28.01 section 1(6)] to indicate that it must”
  • holding that reviewing court should not address merits of issue not preserved for appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran, Price, Womack, Johnson, Holcomb, Keller, Keasler, Hervey, Meyers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

439 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.