Skip to main content

Sanders v. State

Citations

  • 191 S.W.3d 272
  • 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1872
  • 2006 WL 561853

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 does not abuse its discretion by admitting extraneous offense evidence when defendant fails to ask State for notice of its intent to offer such evidence
  • holding that trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting extraneous offense evidence when defendant fails to ask State for notice of its intent to offer such evidence
  • noting that State’s argument was that evidence did not support conclusion that victim lied
  • noting that affidavit provided “substantial basis” to conclude that “probable cause existed that the computer . . . contained child pornography” in February 2003 where victim told officer that defendant had shown her child pornography on his computer in 2001
  • approving admission of expert testimony on use of EnCase where detective had training and experience using software, discussed periodicals writing about software, and testified that software was “field standard” for forensic computer examination
  • applying abuse of discretion standard to a rule 404(b) notice challenge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite 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.