Ruben 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 trial court erred by entering a deadly weapon finding when the jury found the appellant guilty ―as alleged in the indictment‖ and the indictment contained no mention of a deadly weapon
• not addressing propriety of quashing, but finding insufficient similarity between cases to show prejudice
• not addressing propriety of quashing, but finding insufficient similarity between cases to show prejudice
• “The indictment contains no mention of a ‘deadly’ weapon; therefore, the court acted improperly in entering its finding as to the use of a deadly weapon in the absence of such an affirmative finding by the jury, the appropriate trier of fact in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).