© 2005 Lang Baker
State v MoffJanuary 26, 2005No. PD-0458-03
On original submission, we held that the trial court did not err in quashing Moff's indictment before trial. We then said that, because there had been no trial, a harm analysis was unnecessary. This was a curious statement and - despite the fact that I voted for it the first time around - incorrect. The reason a harm analysis was unnecessary is that there was no error. The statement was also confusing and contrary to our general rule that, except for federal constitutional errors the Supreme Court has labeled "structural," no error is categorically immune from a harm analysis. (1) I would reissue the opinion without the erroneous statement, and save appellate judges and practitioners the trouble of trying to figure out what we meant. KELLER, Presiding Judge Date filed: January 26, 2005 Publish 1. Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 242, 246. This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors.
Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
© 2005 Lang Baker |