Skip to main content

Holland v. State

Citations

  • 802 S.W.2d 696
  • 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 14
  • 1991 WL 7992

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that violation of confrontation clause must be preserved by timely and specific objection at trial
  • concluding that a hearsay objection does not preserve a claim of constitutional error because evidentiary and constitutional errors “are neither synonymous nor necessarily coextensive”
  • holding that violation of confrontation clause must be preserved by timely and specific objection at trial
  • holding that hearsay objection did not preserve error on confrontation or 16 due-process grounds
  • reasoning that a defendant forfeits his constitutional right to confront witnesses if he does not object to the denial of that right at trial
  • reasoning that a defendant forfeits his constitutional right to confront witnesses if he does not object to the denial of that right at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clinton, Teague, Maloney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

17 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.