Skip to main content

Padilla v. State

Citations

  • 326 S.W.3d 195
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1239
  • 2010 WL 3894785

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a rational fact-finder can consider a defendant’s untruthful statements as evidence of the defendant’s guilt
  • holding that a rational fact- finder can consider a defendant’s untruthful statements as evidence of the defendant’s guilt
  • recognizing that rational fact finder can consider a defendant’s untruthful statement as affirmative evidence of guilt
  • noting that a rational factfinder can consider a defendant’s untruthful statements, in connection with the other circumstances of the case, as affirmative evidence of the defendant’s guilt
  • noting that a rational factfinder can consider a defendant’s untruthful statements, in connection with the other circumstances of the case, as affirmative evidence of the defendant’s guilt
  • stating that a rational trier of fact could consider an appellant’s untruthful statements, “in connection with the other circumstances of the case, as affirmative evidence of appellant’s guilt”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Padilla v. State

49 other CourtListener records share this case 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.