Skip to main content

Wilson v. State

Citations

  • 311 S.W.3d 452
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 685
  • 2010 WL 715253

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that Article 38.23(a) may not be invoked for statutory violations unrelated to the purpose of the exclusionary rule or to the prevention of the illegal procurement of evidence of a crime
  • noting that Article 38.23 “prohibits the use of a much broader category of ‘illegally obtained’ evidence” than federal rule
  • explaining that police use of “trickery and deception” during interrogation is generally permissible whereas fabricating evidence is not
  • holding that Article 38.23(a) applies to Section 37.09
  • recognizing Texas’s exclusionary rule provides broader protections than does federal, judicially created rule
  • acknowledging that the defendant did not preserve the precise complaint that formed the basis of our decision on original submission but finding it of no consequence because he preserved a different complaint that compelled the same result

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cochran, Price, Womack, Johnson, Holcomb, Meyers, Keasler, Keller, Hervey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

58 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.