Skip to main content

Manning v. State

Citations

  • 730 S.W.2d 744
  • 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 580

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that even when common law rules regarding competency and sanity are codified, if the rules concerning burden shifting have not been incorporated into the statute, then those common law rules remain the same
  • recognizing that even when common law rules regarding competency and sanity are codified, if the rules concerning burden shifting have not been incorporated into the statute, then those common law rules remain the same
  • finding egregious harm when charge incorrectly instructed jury on State’s burden of proof on defendant’s competency
  • discussing presumption of competency and shifting burden in context of State’s attempt to try accused for crime charged
  • improperly stated burden of proof which may have harmed appellant was egregious harm
  • “[A] defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, his incompetency to stand trial or his insanity at the time of the offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davis, Onion, Clinton, White, McCormick, Duncan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 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.