Skip to main content

Holmes v. State

Citations

  • 223 S.W.3d 728
  • 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3343
  • 2007 WL 1245891

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding appellant did not waive right to article 38.23 instruction in failing to object to introduction of evidence when “he raised a fact issue regarding the legality of the seizure of the cocaine”
  • lawfulness of seizure may be challenged by: (1) pre-trial suppression motion; (2) trial objection; or (3) raising fact issue under article 38.23
  • lawfulness of seizure may be challenged by: (1) pre-trial suppression motion; (2) trial objection; or (3) raising fact issue under article 38.23
  • “We conclude here, as we did in Bell, that appellant did not waive his right to an article 38.23 instruction, and because he raised a fact issue regarding the legality of the seizure of the cocaine, he was entitled to such an instruction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Leslie B. Yates

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 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.