Skip to main content

Lewis v. State

Citations

  • 56 S.W.3d 617
  • 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5454
  • 2001 WL 909290

How courts have described this case

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

  • evidence was sufficient to show the accused knew an investigation was pending because he refused to spit the object out or otherwise allow its removal after being ordered to do so
  • evidence was sufficient to show the accused knew an investigation was pending because he refused to spit the object out or otherwise allow its removal after being ordered to do so
  • evidence was sufficient to show the accused knew an investigation was pending because he refused to spit the object out or otherwise allow its removal after being ordered to do so
  • ―The statute does not require that the evidence be made useless to the investigation or proceeding by its concealment; rather, it requires that the defendant have acted with the intent to impair its usefulness in the investigation or the proceeding.‖
  • “The statute does not require that the evidence be made useless to the investigation or proceeding by its concealment; rather, it requires that the defendant have acted with the intent to impair its usefulness in the investigation or the proceeding.”
  • swallowing evidence sufficient to support evidence tampering conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cornelius, Grant, Ross

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.