Harrell v. State, 831-91
| Decision Date | 09 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 831-91,831-91 |
| Citation | 820 S.W.2d 800 |
| Parties | Wesley HARRELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Odis R. Hill, Mark Engelhart, Longview, for appellant.
David Brabham, Dist. Atty., and C. Patrice Savage, Asst. Dist. Atty., Longview, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., and Matthew W. Paul, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury convicted appellant of engaging in organized crime and assessed punishment at confinement for fifteen years. The Court of Appeals reversed appellant's conviction. Harrell v. State, 1991 WL 79989 (Tex.App.--Tyler, No. 12-89-00035-CR, delivered May 17, 1991).
The State, through the District Attorney of Gregg county and the State Prosecuting Attorney, has filed petitions for discretionary review contending that the Court of Appeals has erred in its review of the admission of evidence concerning an extraneous offense.
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of this Court's recent opinion in Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), which discussed the applicable Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence dealing with the admission of extraneous offenses. Therefore, we summarily grant the State's petitions for discretionary review and remand this case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the issue of the admission of the extraneous offense in light of Montgomery.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. State
...Harrell v. State, 885 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1991) ("Harrell I"). This Court reversed and remanded. Harrell v. State, 820 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) ("Harrell II"). On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Harrell v. State, 885 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1992) ("Harrell III"). We......
-
Nunez v. State
...act necessary to complete the offense. Harrell v. State, 885 S.W.2d 427, 431 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 820 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see also Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 222 The test for determining when an instruction should be submitted to the jury on th......
-
Reina v. State
...the alleged combination. See Harrell v. State, 885 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.--Tyler), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 820 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Because the evidence is factually insufficient to support an affirmative finding on the existence of a combination or Reina's kno......
-
Harrell v. State
...contending that we erred in our review of the admission of evidence of an extraneous offense. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded 820 S.W.2d 800 this case to us to reconsider the admission of the extraneous offense in the light of their subsequent opinion in Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.......