Skip to main content

Hammons v. State

Citations

  • 239 S.W.3d 798
  • 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1632
  • 2007 WL 3375262

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining totality of cross-examiner’s questions must be considered in deciding whether cross-examination implied an intent by the witness to fabricate and, thereby, opened the door to the admission of a prior consistent statement by the witness
  • explaining totality of cross-examiner’s questions must be considered in deciding whether cross-examination implied an intent by the witness to fabricate and, thereby, opened the door to the admission of a prior consistent statement by the witness
  • subtly implied charge of recent fabrication during defendant's cross-examination \became vociferously express during [defendant's] closing argument\
  • in assessing whether cross-examination of a witness makes an implied charge of recent fabrication, reviewing court should consider, among other things, \the interpretation put on [the cross-examination] by the [trial] court\
  • subtly implied charge of recent fabrication during defendant’s cross-examination “became vociferously express during [defendant’s] closing argument”
  • trial court’s admission of evidence under rule 801(e)(1)(B) is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

29 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.