Montgomery v. State
- Decided
- June 19, 1991
- Docket
- 1090-88, 1091-88
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 7,264 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that reasonable men may disagree whether in common experience a particular inference is available — Saldivar v. State (1998)
- recognizing that an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts without reference to any guiding principles or rules — Russell v. State (2003)
- recognizing that limiting instruction “would not likely have neutralized the danger” that the jury would lose sight of the specific issues they were to decide — Russell v. State (2003)
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 ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.
A jury found appellant, Patrick Logan Montgomery, guilty of two counts of indecency with a child and assessed a sentence of ten years’ confinement for each offense. [*375] He appealed. The Dallas Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear testimony which appellant claimed constituted improper proof of an extraneous offense. Montgomery v. State, 760 S.W.2d 323, 324-325 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988). We granted appellant’s petition to review this holding[1] and now affirm.
During the trial of this case, over appellant’s objection, the judge allowed the State to introduce testimony that appellant had on several occasions paraded around in front of his minor daughters, the complainants, in the nude with an erection. Before the Court of Appeals, appellant argued that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce this testimony, arguing that:
Cite this
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (1991)Read the full opinion
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.