CLIFTON WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appeal of Case of the 114th Judicial District Court, Smith County Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion. I join the Court's opinion, ante. I write to emphasize that we have not been asked to decide whether the instruction on mental retardation violated Article 36.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the trial judge to deliver a written charge "setting forth the law" and "not summing up the testimony, [or] discussing the facts ." Filed November 26, 2008. Publish. (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Close This Window
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
No. AP-75,541
CLIFTON WILLIAMS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appeal of Case 114-1505-06 of the
114th Judicial District Court,
Smith County
Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion.
I join the Court's opinion, ante. I write to emphasize that we have not been asked to decide whether the instruction on mental retardation violated Article 36.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the trial judge to deliver a written charge "setting forth the law" and "not summing up the testimony, [or] discussing the facts ."
Filed November 26, 2008.
Publish.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
