Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 4/10/2002

Kutzner v. State

Citations

75 S.W.3d 427
2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 81
2002 WL 532423

How courts have described this case

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

holding that we construe a statute according to its plain textual meaning without resort to extratextual sources unless language is ambiguous or plain meaning leads to absurd result
holding that Chapter 64 DNA proceeding is “criminal case” for purposes of appeal
stating that we are to construe statute according to its plain textual meaning unless statute is ambiguous or construction would lead to absurd result that legislature could not possibly have intended
recognizing the Act = s legislative history shows it was meant to A ensure that a favorable [DNA] test would show that an inmate is innocent, not merely muddy the waters in the case @
recognizing the Act = s legislative history shows it was meant to A ensure that a favorable [DNA] test would show that an inmate is innocent, not merely muddy the waters in the case @
recognizing the Act = s legislative history shows it was meant to A ensure that a favorable [DNA] test would show that an inmate is innocent, not merely muddy the waters in the case @

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.