Skip to main content

Skinner v. State

Citations

  • 122 S.W.3d 808
  • 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 927
  • 2003 WL 22902830

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, while appreciated, were not required when trial court denied motion for post-conviction DNA testing for failure to prove Article 64.03 requirements
  • holding sufficient trial court’s finding that appellant failed to meet the requirements of 64.03(a)(2)(A) and 64.03(a)(2)(B)
  • holding sufficient trial court‘s finding that appellant failed to meet the requirements of 64.03(a)(2)(A) and 64.03(a)(2)(B)
  • noting that testing requested “would only demonstrate the presence of a third party” and “not provide a reasonable probability of the appellant’s innocence”
  • overruling district court's findings of unreasonable delay when DNA testing sought before execution date set
  • ―Chapter 64 deals with the testing of forensic DNA evidence. Fingerprint evidence is not covered.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.