Skip to main content

Fuller v. State

Citations

  • 73 S.W.3d 250
  • 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 68
  • 2002 WL 459834

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that variance is immaterial and evidence is legally sufficient when substantive elements of offense have been proven
  • holding that the prosecution’s failure to prove the victim’s name exactly as alleged in the indictment does not make the evidence insufficient under Gollihar
  • holding that victim’s name did not have to be included in hypothetically correct jury charge
  • holding that the prosecution = s failure to prove the victim = s name exactly as alleged in the indictment does not make the evidence insufficient under Gollihar
  • holding that any variance was immaterial between the victim’s name as alleged in the indictment [“Olen M. Fuller”] and the name proven at trial [referenced as “Mr. Fuller” and “Buddy”] where: (1
  • holding that victim’s name was not substantive element of offense of injury to an elderly individual, noting that state law did not define the offense as “injury to an elderly individual named [victim’s name in case].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.