Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 9: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:52, December 13, 2025

This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution.

Jackson v. State 139 SW 1156, 63 Tex. Crim. 351, 63 Tex. Crim. R. 351 - 1911

58 Tex. 539

Culver v. Smith, 74 SW 2d 754 - 1934

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.
-== add ==
+==add?==
-Holder v. State, 639 S.W.3d 704,
+Jackson v. State 139 SW 1156, 63 Tex. Crim. 351, 63 Tex. Crim. R. 351 - 1911
-https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15255797344651249816
-(Tex. Crim. App. 2022).
+Tex. 539
-Indeed, this Court has previously observed that it was a reaction to this Court's opinion in Welchek v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 271, 247 S.W. 524 (1922)— which first held that there is no such remedy under our state constitution—that provoked the Legislature to enact what is now Article 38.23. See Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28, 33-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Exclusion of evidence obtained only in violation of Article I, Section 9, is exclusively a function of statute: Article 38.23 of our Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows that any error in failing to suppress evidence at trial that was illegally obtained under Article I, Section 9, is not error of a constitutional dimension, but simply a statutory violation. The proper harm analysis is therefore the one contained in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 44.2(b), not 44.2(a)
+Culver v. Smith, 74 SW 2d 754 - 1934