Manns v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant failed to preserve error in admission of extraneous-offense evidence
• stating that “the government does not convert the informant into a government agent by merely accepting the offered information”
• discussing cases finding instructions such as “keep your ears open” were insufficient to create agency relationship
• providing courts should afford “almost total deference” to the trial court’s determination of historical facts and mixed questions of law and fact that turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor
• The informant “was an entrepreneur who exploited [the defendant] for his own gain. The government did nothing to encourage [his] behavior but merely accepted the information.”
• “Although a motion in limine does not preserve error, error can be preserved by a timely objection made in a hearing outside the presence of the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).