Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 12/12/1985
Mosby v. State
Citations
- 703 S.W.2d 714
- 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12828
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding appellant’s right to public trial was not violated by court’s outright exclusion of non-participants because of the extremely sensitive nature of the evidence being developed and youthful age of the witness
- a guardian ad litem who was seated behind child witness during child’s testimony did not affect jury’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility
- “limitations on pubic attendance may be imposed so long as they are no more exclusive than necessary to protect a state interest that outweighs the appellant’s interest in public scrutiny of the proceedings”
- ―limitations on pubic attendance may be imposed so long as they are no more exclusive than necessary to protect a state interest that outweighs the appellant’s interest in public scrutiny of the proceedings‖
- guardian ad litem sat 15-20 feet behind 11-vear-old witness
- guardian ad litem sat 15-20 feet behind eleven-year-old witness
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nye, Seerden, Benavides
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re ThomaTexas Supreme Court· 1994-03-15· cited 82×
- Hernandez v. StateTex. App. Ct., 8th Dist. (El Paso)· 1996-04-03· cited 41×
- Bobby Joe Peyronel v. StateTex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2014-08-21· cited 17×
- State v. RowrayCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1993-09-17· cited 13×
- Duffitt v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 1988-02-17· cited 9×
- Gadberry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas· 1994-06-15· cited 7×
- State v. LetendreSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 2011-01-13· cited 5×
- Lilly v. StateTex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)· 2011-02-17· cited 4×
- Kenneth L. Weston v. StateTex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 1994-01-12
- Roger Dale Gentry v. StateTex. App. Ct., 6th Dist. (Texarkana)· 2008-12-18
- Carla Jo Keck v. StateTex. App. Ct., 6th Dist. (Texarkana)· 2009-07-09
- Conrad Lilly v. State of TexasTex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)· 2011-02-17
- Guillry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1993-04-29
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Alejandro v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1973-04-11· cited 877×
- Ex Parte AbellTexas Supreme Court· 1981-03-18· cited 225×
- Boles v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1980-05-07· cited 131×
- Exxon Corporation v. BrecheenTexas Supreme Court· 1975-07-07· cited 66×
- Wilson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-11-02· cited 56×
- Ex Parte WatsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1980-10-22· cited 53×
- Sol Shearn Rovinsky v. Dan v. McKaskle Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections, RespondentFifth Circuit· 1984-03-12· cited 50×
- Cunningham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1972-09-25· cited 47×
- Rathmell v. StateTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 1983-02-24· cited 21×
- A.D.P. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1982-12-30· cited 18×
- Christoph v. SimsCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1950-10-27· cited 16×
- Ritchey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-10-26· cited 15×
- City of Houston v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1984-06-07· cited 14×
- Gaynier v. JohnsonTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1984-02-14· cited 14×
- Silguero v. StateTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 1983-10-05· cited 10×
- Neal v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-03-23· cited 10×
- Harper v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1985-02-20· cited 8×
- Smith v. StateTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1984-01-17· cited 6×
- Marroquin v. StateTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 1983-06-09· cited 6×
- Tumlinson v. StateTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1984-05-02· cited 6×
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.