Skip to main content

Preston v. State

Citations

  • 481 S.W.2d 408
  • 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1906

How courts have described this case

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

  • “perceiv[ing] no harm to appellant in the instant case by the exclusion of the time card when it was subsequently admitted into evidence”
  • \perceiv[ing] no harm to appellant in the instant case by the exclusion of the time card when it was subsequently admitted into evidence\
  • “This Court has consistently held reversal is not required by exclusion of evidence where same testimony was later admitted without objection.”
  • “This Court has consistently held reversal is not required by exclusion of evidence where same testimony was later admitted without objection.”
  • “This Court has consistently held reversal is not required by exclusion of evidence where same testimony was later admitted without objection.”
  • “This Court has consistently held reversal is not 14 required by exclusion of evidence where same testimony was later admitted without objection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 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.