Prihoda v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that uncertain in-court identification does not make verdict improper if there is other corroborating evidence; in such case, uncertainty of witness is relevant to weight of testimony and is for jury to consider
• listing different types of proof that have been held sufficient to prove a prior conviction for enhancement purposes
• remanded the cause for a new punishment hearing according to the Texas Code of Criminal Pro cedures art. 44.29 (west supp. 2010)
• “even if the name on the judgment matched that of the defendant, a certified judgment on its own is insufficient” to link the defendant to the prior offense
• 3-year delay did not violate Sixth Amendment
• 3-year delay did not violate Sixth Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).