Skip to main content

Holmes v. State

Citations

  • 323 S.W.3d 163

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to 11 suppress is deeply connected to decision to plead guilty
  • holding that trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to 11 suppress is deeply connected to decision to plead guilty
  • stating that an offer of proof is necessary to show error or harm from the exclusion of evidence unless the substance is apparent from the context
  • recognizing a distinction between the exclusion of impeachment evidence going to the substance of the evidence, which must be preserved by bill of exception or otherwise under Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2
  • finding that trial court’s failure to permit defendants to present a defense could not be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, not to have contributed to decision to enter pleas resulting in conviction
  • noting the primary purpose of an offer of proof “is to enable an appellate court to determine whether the exclusion was erroneous and harmful”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.