30.05 sign

[myjohnson]

All 7 are unpublished opinions.

This means that they are not published by the official south west reporters.

This also means that they generally should not be cited for legal precedent.

Have you tried google scholar?

 

[txinvestigator]

All 7 are unpublished opinions.

This means that they are not published by the official south west reporters.

This also means that they generally should not be cited for legal precedent.

Have you tried google scholar?

Thanks.

I know it is a PITA, could you give us a little snippet of a review? I will try Google scholar right now.

 

[Robb in Austin]

All 7 are unpublished opinions.

This means that they are not published by the official south west reporters.

This also means that they generally should not be cited for legal precedent.

Why? If they are opinions of a legally presiding judge/JOP/court officer why should they not be used, publication or not. As I read, higher courts basically set the precedent. But, doesn't rationale from lower courts provide reasoning for a higher courts decision making that set a precedent? Obviously, if many issues of a common nature(CHL carry beyond a 30.06 sign in this case) but decided in many ways based on case specific facts a common ground may not be reached and precedent not set.
Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.

 

[myjohnson]

Thanks.

I know it is a PITA, could you give us a little snippet of a review? I will try Google scholar right now.

1) District court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses involving a county commissioner carrying a handgun to meetings. The indictments did not sufficiently allege a misdemeanor involving official misconduct to give the district court jurisdiction; they did not allege that defendant was a county official.

2) Defendant was found sitting alone in his truck, and officers found bottles of alcoholic beverages along with two loaded handguns inside the truck. The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for unlawfully carrying a handgun while being a licensed concealed-handgun carrier and while intoxicate.

3) The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for DWI, and for unlawfully carrying of a handgun by a license holder while intoxicated, and the record did not show that he was egregiously harmed by the trial court's reference to "Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon" in the verdict form.

4) In a case of unlawfully carrying a handgun by a license holder, arising from defendant's display of his handgun while arguing with another motorist, the trial court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on self-defense under because defendant would not have been justified in using deadly force.

5) Evidence was sufficient to infer that defendant intentionally failed to conceal a handgun even though he did not point or specifically refer to the gun, because he approached a car that was in his parking space, demanded that the car be moved, and partially removed the gun from his pocket.

6) When defendant carried a firearm into a building where voting was going on in any part of that building, he was guilty of entering a polling place on an election day while carrying a firearm.

7) Appellant's conviction was upheld when the indictment against appellant was not unduly vague and when a term in a statute was to be given its common usage meaning. Defendant tried to rely on the new meaning of school premises, to exclude sidewalks, but his crime was committed before the effective date of that amendment which was June 20, 1997, so he could not rely on the meaning found in 46.035.

 

[myjohnson]

Why? If they are opinions of a legally presiding judge/JOP/court officer why should they not be used, publication or not. As I read, higher courts basically set the precedent. But, doesn't rationale from lower courts provide reasoning for a higher courts decision making that set a precedent? Obviously, if many issues of a common nature(CHL carry beyond a 30.06 sign in this case) but decided in many ways based on case specific facts a common ground may not be reached and precedent not set.
Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.

Sorry, I'm lost. Can you rephrase the question?

I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

Maybe this link will help explain things....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinions_in_the_United_States

 

[txinvestigator]

1) District court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses involving a county commissioner carrying a handgun to meetings. The indictments did not sufficiently allege a misdemeanor involving official misconduct to give the district court jurisdiction; they did not allege that defendant was a county official.

2) Defendant was found sitting alone in his truck, and officers found bottles of alcoholic beverages along with two loaded handguns inside the truck. The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for unlawfully carrying a handgun while being a licensed concealed-handgun carrier and while intoxicate.

3) The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for DWI, and for unlawfully carrying of a handgun by a license holder while intoxicated, and the record did not show that he was egregiously harmed by the trial court's reference to "Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon" in the verdict form.

4) In a case of unlawfully carrying a handgun by a license holder, arising from defendant's display of his handgun while arguing with another motorist, the trial court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on self-defense under because defendant would not have been justified in using deadly force.

5) Evidence was sufficient to infer that defendant intentionally failed to conceal a handgun even though he did not point or specifically refer to the gun, because he approached a car that was in his parking space, demanded that the car be moved, and partially removed the gun from his pocket.

6) When defendant carried a firearm into a building where voting was going on in any part of that building, he was guilty of entering a polling place on an election day while carrying a firearm.

7) Appellant's conviction was upheld when the indictment against appellant was not unduly vague and when a term in a statute was to be given its common usage meaning. Defendant tried to rely on the new meaning of school premises, to exclude sidewalks, but his crime was committed before the effective date of that amendment which was June 20, 1997, so he could not rely on the meaning found in 46.035.

Yout are awesome. I really appreciate it.

 

[Robb in Austin]

Sorry, I'm lost. Can you rephrase the question?

I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

Maybe this link will help explain things....

Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link helped. Thanks. I didn't find that earlier, but then again I was searching on my phone while on the throne so...

I was stating/asking that don't lower courts rulings provide a foundation for upper courts to base their decisions that may go on to become a precedent. (Seems to me, based on limited understanding of the way in which precedents are set, that they do.)
I do see the confusion in my statement though. The link provides some clarification to why they may not be published and why they wouldn't become a precedent.

 

[Robb in Austin]

1)

4) In a case of unlawfully carrying a handgun by a license holder, arising from defendant's display of his handgun while arguing with another motorist, the trial court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on self-defense under because defendant would not have been justified in using deadly force.

Someone correct me if wrong but if deadly force is justified, displaying in order to stop a threat is a defense to prosecution; correct? (Obviously, in this case deadly force was not found to be justified and therefore display was inappropriate.)

 

[myjohnson]

Correct.

When confronted with deadly force you can respond with deadly force (or anything less than deadly force) in self defense.

 

[M. Sage]

I've seen case law (federal?) where a felon had a firearm, used it in self defense and it was ruled that he couldn't be prosecuted as felon in possession as long as the self defense was legitimate.

 

[TXARGUY]

Wow! This thread sure matured over the last few days. Great info here. Thanks guys for keeping the discussion alive expanding it far beyond the OP.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Yout are awesome. I really appreciate it.

Mark your calendar MJ......I have never seen TI say anything like that before! ETA: This was meant with total respect to TI.....

 

[txinvestigator]

Mark your calendar MJ......I have never seen TI say anything like that before! ETA: This was meant with total respect to TI.....

Apparently, I cannot even spell "you" correctly. I became Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinney.