Skip to main content

King v. State

Citations

  • 76 S.W.3d 659
  • 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 2552
  • 2002 WL 534085

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that circumstantial evidence demonstrated the defendant’s intent to hinder apprehension of a parolee when the defendant answered the door to the parolee’s residence and lied to police, denying that the parolee was at the residence
  • noting that intent may be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused
  • noting that intent may be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused
  • finding that circumstantial evidence demonstrated the defendant’s intent to hinder apprehension of parolee when defendant answered the door to parolee’s residence and lied to police, denying that parolee was at residence
  • finding that circumstantial evidence demonstrated the defendant = s intent to hinder apprehension of parolee when defendant answered the door to parolee = s residence and lied to police, denying that parolee was at residence
  • “Rather, the gravamen of the offense [section 38.05] rests on the intent of the defendant . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: J. Harvey Hudson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 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.