Skip to main content

Rangel v. State

Citations

  • 250 S.W.3d 96
  • 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 220
  • 2008 WL 375446

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that statements to child advocacy center interviewer were testimonial
  • holding that statements to child advocacy center interviewer were testimonial
  • holding, unless issue is relitigated later in trial, appellate courts review trial court’s ruling on admission of evidence based on record at time of ruling
  • applying Article 13.15‘s special sexual assault venue provision to aggravated sexual assault
  • dismissing petitions for review as improvidently granted and stating, \We refuse to examine the propriety of a trial judge's ruling based on evidence that the trial judge had no opportunity to consider when he made his ruling.\
  • ―We refuse to examine the propriety of a trial judge‘s ruling based on evidence that the trial judge had no opportunity to consider when he made his ruling.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Womack, Cochran, Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.