Skip to main content

Green v. State

Citations

  • 799 S.W.2d 756
  • 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 191
  • 1990 WL 182411

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “purely technical discrepancies in dates or times do not automatically vitiate the validity of search or arrest warrants” (emphasis in original)
  • providing that technical defects in a warrant may be cured by explanatory testimony at the suppression hearing explaining that the error was clerical
  • holding that discrepancies in dates of warrant documents, such as a warrant being dated earlier than its supporting affidavit, do not invalidate the warrant if there is testimony in the record showing that the discrepancy is merely a clerical or typographical error
  • holding warrant was not supported by probable cause because State failed to demonstrate why affidavit dated five days prior to search warrant’s execution was clerical error
  • holding warrant was not supported by probable cause because State failed to demonstrate why affidavit dated five days prior to search warrant‘s execution was clerical error
  • stating that the two objectives of the law concerning search warrants are to ensure that there is adequate probable cause to search and to prevent a mistake in the execution of the warrant against an innocent third party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davis, McCormick, White, Berchelmann, Sturns

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 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.