Roethel v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lack of notice did not affect appellant = s substantial rights because record contained no evidence that appellant = s ability to present a defense was impaired
• holding State’s notice defective where it alleged no dates and pattern offenses could have occurred during eight-year span
• holding State’s notice defective where it alleged no dates and pattern offenses could have occurred during eight-year span
• “appellant’s failure to object that the State did not give notice of more than one extraneous offense prevents him from raising this complaint on appeal”
• in determining harm, a reviewing Court must look to whether the defendant was surprised by the substance of the testimony
• “The lack of notice does not render the evidence inherently unreliable, but instead raises a question about the effect of procedural noncompliance. . . . Thus, we must analyze how the deficiency of the notice affected appellant’s ability to prepare for the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).