© 2003 Lang Baker
Middleton v StateApril 23, 2003No. 1263-01 Concurring opinion by Judge Womack Links to other opinions in this case: Majority opinion by Judge Keasler Dissenting opinion by Judge Price IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 1263-01 DAVID WAYNE MIDDLETON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS WISE COUNTY Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion. I join the Court’s opinion with the understanding that, because of an unusual feature of this case, it does not resolve the general question of the need to define “probable cause” in the court’s charge under Article 38.23. The Court prudently decides no more than the case requires. The State took the issue of probable cause out of this case by accepting a burden to prove more than the law required; that is, that the defendant did commit an offense in the officer’s presence. The law’s requirement is only that the officer have probable cause to believe that someone committed an offense in the officer’s presence.* We have not decided (although, it seems to me, the issue would not be close) whether “probable cause” must be defined probable cause is the standard for the jury. En banc. 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.
© 2003 Lang Baker |