Skip to main content

Mays v. State

Citations

  • 285 S.W.3d 884
  • 2009 WL 1066936

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that error was not preserved when appellant failed to proffer with some degree of specificity the substantive evidence he intended to present
  • holding that error was not preserved when appellant failed to proffer with some degree of specificity the substantive evidence he intended to present
  • holding that error was not preserved when appellant failed to proffer, with some degree of specificity, the substantive evidence he intended to present
  • holding that error was not preserved when appellant failed to proffer, with “some degree of specificity,” the substantive evidence he intended to present
  • holding that offer of proof may consist of concise statement by counsel or may be in question-and-answer form
  • holding that error was not preserved when appellant failed to proffer, with “some degree of specificity,” the substantive evidence he intended to present

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 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.