CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 06-08-00024-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Charles Terrell McClure v. State

Charles Terrell McClure appealed his sentence for constructive delivery of methamphetamine, challenging the admission of extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase. He argued insufficient evidence corroborated his extrajudicial confession and that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that extrajudicial confessions of extraneous offenses do not require corroboration in the punishment phase and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, especially considering McClure had filed an application for community supervision.

Criminal LawExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCorroboration of ConfessionExtrajudicial AdmissionProbative ValueUnfair PrejudiceSentencing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lee

The case involves a motion to suppress a confession made by 17-year-old Steven Lee, who was arrested for multiple robberies. Prior to his interrogation, Lee's parents explicitly informed detectives they would secure a lawyer for him. Despite this, and after initial Miranda warnings, detectives proceeded with questioning Lee at the precinct while he was handcuffed. The court found that the parents' unequivocal statement constituted an effective invocation of Lee's right to counsel, requiring the police to either reiterate his rights in light of the parents' intent or wait a reasonable time for a lawyer. The court also expressed reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness and knowing waiver of Lee's Miranda rights, particularly given his age, lack of prior arrests, handcuffing, and threats made by detectives. Consequently, the motion to suppress Lee's confession for both indictments was granted.

Confession suppressionMiranda rightsParental invocation of counselJuvenile rightsCustodial interrogationVoluntariness of confessionPolice threatsRight to counsel waiver17-year-old defendantIntervening events
References
12
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08353
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

People v. Tayo

The defendant, Jose Tayo, appealed a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree. The conviction was based on a jury trial where the People introduced a previously undisclosed confession made by the defendant to a health care worker, which corroborated a confession made to a detective. The defendant argued that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the timing of the disclosure. However, the court found no evidence of deceit by the People and determined that the trial had not progressed to a point where the defense could not have been adjusted. The court also rejected the defendant's unpreserved claim regarding physician-patient privilege and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, stating that it was unreviewable on direct appeal. The sentence of 25 years to life was upheld.

Murder Second DegreeJury TrialUndisclosed ConfessionDue ProcessFair TrialPhysician-Patient PrivilegeIneffective Assistance of CounselSentencingAppellate ReviewCPL 240.20 [1] [a]
References
6
Case No. 03-96-00726-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1998

Kenneth Jackson, A/K/A Frank Dixon v. State

Kenneth Jackson, convicted of manslaughter, appealed his twenty-year sentence, arguing the trial court improperly admitted evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses (social security fraud) during the punishment phase due to insufficient corroborating evidence. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that Jackson's extrajudicial confession, coupled with California Department of Motor Vehicles records corroborating his use of a false identity, was legally sufficient to establish the extraneous offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury had been properly instructed on the burden of proof for considering such evidence. The appellate court also addressed and upheld the factual sufficiency of the evidence if such a review were applicable.

Criminal LawManslaughterExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseSocial Security FraudExtrajudicial StatementLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyCorroborationTexas Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Linzy

The case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape in the first degree, focusing on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant contended that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration of identity and that the trial court erred in its charge regarding exhibits as corroboration. The majority affirmed the conviction, finding ample corroboration from the complainant's observations and identification, supported by physical evidence. However, the dissenting judges argued that the corroborative evidence was weak and the confusing jury charge on corroboration led to a speculative verdict, necessitating a new trial.

Rape (First Degree)CorroborationJury InstructionsCriminal AppealWitness IdentificationPhysical EvidencePenal LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole S.

This neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act addresses the corroboration required for a child’s unsworn, out-of-court statements. The petitioner alleged respondent Steven S. physically injured his four-year-old child, presenting evidence solely through caseworkers' testimony recounting the child's statements and observations of injuries. The court found that while independent evidence confirmed injuries, there was no corroboration regarding the perpetrator's identity or the manner of injury, independent of the child’s hearsay statements. Applying the corroboration standard from criminal and juvenile delinquency cases, which mandates corroboration for all material elements, the court determined the petitioner failed to satisfy this burden. Consequently, the petition against Steven S. was dismissed.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration RequirementUnsworn Child StatementHearsay ExceptionPhysical InjuryAbuse or Neglect ProceedingSufficiency of EvidenceDue Process ConsiderationsCriminal Procedure Law Standards
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Harris

This concurring opinion addresses a defendant's appeal challenging the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of his written confession. The defendant contended that his arrest lacked probable cause and that his confession, given after Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed. The court found that ample probable cause existed, citing the victim's prior statements, diary entries, and other incriminating evidence. While a lower court initially suppressed an apartment confession based on a *Payton v New York* violation, this opinion asserts that the police entry was consensual. Furthermore, it concludes that a subsequent written confession was admissible due to the attenuation of any potential taint from the initial arrest, given the time lapse and rereading of Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's contentions were ultimately deemed without merit.

Probable CauseWarrantless ArrestMiranda RightsConfession AdmissibilityPayton v New YorkFourth AmendmentAttenuation DoctrineVoluntary ConsentCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 1998

People v. Koury

Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse and sexual abuse after day-care workers observed bruising on a child, leading to an investigation where defendant confessed. His oral statement was reduced to writing and signed. At trial, the jury rejected defendant's claim that his confession was false and involuntary, finding him guilty on all counts. Defendant appealed, asserting errors in precluding his mother's testimony on confession voluntariness, restricting jury selection, and improper questioning about a Family Court proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the County Court's decisions.

Criminal LawSexual AbuseAggravated Sexual AbuseConfession VoluntarinessJury SelectionMiranda WarningsHuntley HearingAppealAppellate ReviewEvidence Admissibility
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole G.

The Rockland County Department of Social Services appealed two Family Court orders concerning child protective proceedings against Nicole G. and Daniella G., which had denied petitions and dismissed the proceedings. The appeal affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Nicole G.'s out-of-court statements regarding her father's alleged abuse were insufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Although witnesses cross-corroborated each other's testimony and Nicole G. provided a narrative, she refused to testify. An expert witness also failed to provide the necessary corroborating evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court Act Article 10Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1984

People v. McRoy

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 14, 1984, which convicted him of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree sodomy. The charges stemmed from the strangulation death of 15-year-old James Richards, who died after refusing the defendant's sexual advances. The defendant confessed to the killing after initially denying involvement and being questioned by police regarding Richards' disappearance. On appeal, the defendant argued his confession should be suppressed as it was obtained during unlawful custody, but the court affirmed the judgment, finding the confession voluntary. Minor trial errors were deemed harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Criminal LawMurderAttempted SodomyConfession VoluntarinessMiranda RightsSuppression HearingHarmless ErrorAppellate ReviewPolice InterrogationSufficiency of Evidence
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 319 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational