LaHood v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that A the fact that [defendant] may have been on psychiatric medication during trial and had a history of mental problems did not mandate a competency inquiry @
• concluding that State = s closing argument was reasonable deduction from the evidence presented at trial; record contained evidence that appellant committed violent crimes against the complainant, and that he had physically and sexually assaulted another woman
• holding that burglary of a non-habitation is a crime of deception
• concluding an accused failed to preserve error on complaint that trial court sustained the State’s relevancy objection to evidence of a witness’s most recent drug use
• stating, generally, that although defendant was on medication, competency inquiry not mandated where there was no indication of present inability to communicate or understand proceeding
• involving statements by an accused that he saw the lights blink, was on medication for schizophrenia, and had not taken his medications during one of the proceedings, none of which was sufficient to require an inquiry of competency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).