Carmouche v. State
- Decided
- January 26, 2000
- Docket
- 0614-99
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 3,205 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a videotape of an arrest that contradicted officer’s testimony at a suppression hearing was sufficient for trial court to discount the officer’s testimony — Ford, Ross Layton (2009)
- holding that a videotape of an arrest that contradicted officer's testimony at a suppression hearing was sufficient for trial court to discount the officer's testimony — Ford, Ross Layton (2009)
- concluding that an officer was justified in handcuffing suspect out of concern for his own safety — Zanzetta Alvina Franklin v. State (2012)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION MEYERS, J., delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, sentenced to twenty years confinement and assessed a $10,000 fine.
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (Vernon 1992 & Supp 1999). The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction.
Cite this
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (2000)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.