Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

933 S.W.2d 495

Cooper v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 2, 1996

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1996-10-02

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2018

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This Court reviews 'decisions' of the courts of appeals; as a general rule, we do not reach the merits of any party's contention when it has not been addressed by the lower appellate court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wagner v. State

Relies on Lee v. State · Cooper v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-10-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

¶2A jury convicted appellant on two counts of aggravated sexual assault. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial. Cooper v. State, 901 S.W.2d 757 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1995). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to address the court of appeal’s holding that it was error to admit evidence of extraneous acts similar to the conduct that appellant was charged with, and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶3Upon closer scrutiny, it is apparent that the court of appeals did not address the theory of admissibility now urged by the State for the first time in its petition for discretionary review. This Court reviews “decisions” of the courts of appeals; as a general rule, we do not reach the merits of any party’s contention when it has not been addressed by the lower appellate court. Lee v. State, 791 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Accordingly, we now find that our decision to grant the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvident. The State’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 200(k).

MEYERS, J., concurs.KELLER, J., dissents.WHITE, J., not participating.
/933/sw2d/495 · .json · Public domain