Snowden, Rion Pheal

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that additional comments did not emphasize State’s prior comment on defendant’s failure to testify because they referred solely to defendant’s state of mind at the time incident occurred
• holding that when confronted with constitutional error, reviewing court must reverse judgment unless it can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to defendant’s conviction or punishment
• holding that State made a “legitimate argument [during punishment phase] that invited the jury to draw an inference of lack of remorse at the time of the offense, an inference that could reasonably be derived from the evidence at trial”
• observing that the erroneous admission of evidence is reviewed for harm under the standard for non-constitutional error
• observing that the erroneous admission of extraneous offense evidence is reviewed for harm under the standard for nonconstitutional error
• observing that the erroneous admission of extraneous offense evidence is reviewed for harm under the standard for nonconstitutional error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).