Skip to main content

Martin v. State

Citations

  • 200 S.W.3d 635
  • 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1285
  • 2006 WL 1750891

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that if a defendant “wants the jury to decide the fact of whether he has two prior DWI convictions, he should not stipulate to them and take that element away from the jury
  • holding the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding the defendant’s stipulation to prior convictions was error
  • recognizing that when a stipulation is entered, the jury should then be instructed, by whatever means and with whatever words are deemed most appropriate to the parties and the trial court, about the existence and legal effect of the defendant’s stipulation
  • holding the trial court's failure to instruct the jury regarding the defendant's stipulation to prior convictions was error
  • holding the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding the defendant’s stipulation to prior convictions was error
  • both the defense and the State are permitted to voir dire potential jurors concerning the range of punishment for felony and misdemeanor driving-while-intoxicated charges

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.