Skip to main content

Swearingen v. State

Citations

  • 270 S.W.3d 804
  • 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 9027
  • 2008 WL 5100912

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding there was no showing of actual harm partly because State’s closing arguments did not emphasize or magnify charge error
  • explaining that amount of harm needed for reversal for jury-charge error depends on whether complaint regarding “that error was preserved in the trial court”
  • noting that “core concept” of sudden passion defense is that “a person’s mental state has rendered him incapable of rational thought and collected action”
  • “Although there may have been evidence of former provocation, the evidence was, at best, weak in establishing that Swearingen was incapable of rational thought and collected action.... ”
  • “In some cases involving charge error implicating jury unanimity, appellate courts have found egregious harm based in part on prosecutor statements urging the jury to make a non-unanimous finding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Law, Puryear, Pemberton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by 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.