Skip to main content

Worthy v. State

Citations

  • 312 S.W.3d 34
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 686
  • 2010 WL 2292303

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “‘same-transaction contextual evidence’ is intrinsic to the offense; it is not ‘an extraneous crime or bad act’ to which [notice requirements of] Article 37.07, § 3(g), explicitly refers”
  • noting that the complained-of evidence “was not absolutely necessary to the jury’s understanding of the charged offense” but affirming the admission of the evidence as same-transaction contextual evidence
  • stating that “pretrial notice of ‘same-transaction contextual evidence’ is not required under Rule 404(b)”
  • noting that the complained-of evidence “was not absolutely necessary to the jury’s understanding of the charged offense” but affirming the admission of the evidence as Freeman v. State Page 4 same-transaction contextual evidence
  • providing because 37.07(g) incorporates Rule 404(b)’s notice requirement by reference, the notice requirement encompasses only case in chief evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.