Show simple item record

dc.creatorBennett, Catherine L.
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T20:02:18Z
dc.date.available2021-06-15T20:02:18Z
dc.date.issued1987
dc.identifier.citation18 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1291en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/87002
dc.description.abstractEx parte Rathmel allows a defendant to be prosecuted successively for multiple violations of the same statute during the same transaction. Its decision is consistent with the policy rationale of McWilliams and, more importantly, with the language of the statute. What is unexpected is the court's repudiation of the Blockburger test that it had approved and adopted in McWilliams. By not permitting lower courts to apply this standard and mandating statutory interpretation, the court of criminal appeals has effectively destroyed the uniformity that McWilliams had produced and perhaps returned to the infamous same evidence test.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectEx parte Rathmelen_US
dc.subjectDouble jeopardyen_US
dc.subjectFifth amendmenten_US
dc.subjectCarving doctrineen_US
dc.subjectBlockburger v. United Statesen_US
dc.titleTexas Allows Successive Prosecutions of a Defendant for the Same Statutory Violation Occurring in the Same Criminal Transaction: Ex parte Rathmell, 717 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)en_US
dc.title.alternativeTexas Allows Successive Prosecutions of a Defendant for the Same Statutory Violation Occurring in the Same Criminal Transactionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record