Skip to main content

Thomas v. State

Citations

  • 126 S.W.3d 138
  • 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4973
  • 2003 WL 21357314

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that eleven months between offenses is not so remote in time as to be inadmissible
  • holding that eleven months between offenses is not so remote in time as to be inadmissible
  • stating that, to be considered relevant, \the evidence must bear the signature of the offender\
  • stating that, to be considered relevant, “the evidence must bear the signature of the offender”
  • holding time period of eleven months between charged offense and extraneous offense was not “so remote in time to be inadmissable” when there were sufficient common distinguishing characteristics in charged offense and extraneous offense
  • holding time period of eleven months between charged offense and extraneous offense was not \so remote in time to be inadmissable\ when there were sufficient common distinguishing characteristics in charged offense and extraneous offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Evelyn v. Keyes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 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.