Skip to main content

Young v. State

Citations

  • 341 S.W.3d 417
  • 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 828
  • 2011 WL 2409241

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that “the Legislature intended for the unit of prosecution to be one offense for each change of address”
  • explaining that “the Legislature intended for the unit of prosecution to be one offense for each change of address”
  • recognizing concern about repeat sex offenses and desire to thwart future sex crimes underlies registration requirement
  • holding jury must agree about occurrence of single criminal offense but need not be unanimous about specific manner and means of how offense was committed
  • noting that “[t]he focus of [article 62.055] is on giving notification to law enforcement and not the means by which a sex offender failed to do so”
  • stating that jury must unanimously agree that single criminal offense occurred, but it “need not be unanimous about the specific manner and means of how that offense was committed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 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.