Skip to main content

Taylor v. State

Citations

  • 939 S.W.2d 148
  • 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 206
  • 1996 WL 577796

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that, if Taylor’s objection could not have been fairly construed as relating to the voir dire restriction, then Taylor would have waived error
  • reasoning that the tenets of Ake could, in principle, require the appointment of a DNA expert to assist the defense
  • where record is clear that trial court understood objection and legal basis therefore, error is preserved despite appellant’s failure to state magic words “I object”
  • where context was clear from record, error was preserved despite failure to state “magic words,” “I object”
  • where record is clear that trial court understood objection and legal basis therefore, error is preserved despite appellant's failure to state magic words \I object\
  • “If appellant demonstrated the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of the requested expert testimony vis-a-vis a viable defense, then he would have been entitled to a DNA expert”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mansfield, McCormick, White, Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

98 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.