Skip to main content

Hughes v. State

Citations

  • 4 S.W.3d 1
  • 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82
  • 1999 WL 391114

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that lack of favorable testimony suggested the State was attempting to use prior inconsistent statements under the guise of impeachment
  • holding that impeachment evidence of prior inconsistent statements should be excluded by trial court under Rule 403 if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value
  • holding that impeachment evidence of prior inconsistent statements should be excluded by trial court under Rule 403 if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value
  • holding that when the State elicited no favorable testimony from a witness, the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach the witness with hearsay under the guise of impeaching the witness with prior inconsistent statements
  • deciding, under similar circumstances, that trial court abused its discretion to permit State to impeach its witness with prior inconsistent statements
  • deciding, under similar circumstances, that trial court abused its discretion to permit State to impeach its witness with prior inconsistent statements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holland, Meyers, Mansfield, Price, Womack, Keasler, Johnson, Keller, McCormick

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

30 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.