Jourdan, Ricardo

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the gravamen of the [Penal Code] subsection is penetration, not the various unspecified ‘means’ by which that penetration may be perpetrated”
• noting that “the gravamen of the [Penal Code] subsection is penetration, not the various unspecified 'means’ by which that penetration may be perpetrated”
• explaining that the “jury must be unanimous in finding every constituent element of the charged offense in all criminal cases”
• explaining that in examining statutory language for legislative intent, we inquire into the ‘gravamen’ of the offense
• stating that a relevant consideration in an egregious-harm analysis is “the likelihood that the jury would in fact have reached a non-unanimous verdict on the facts of the particular case”
• noting that “the gravamen of [§ 22.021(a)(1)(A)(i)] is penetration, not the various and unspecified ‘means’ by which that penetration may be perpetrated, which are not elemental” and holding that “the 15 penetration of a single orifice (the sexual organ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).