Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 9 and Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 10: Difference between pages

Revision as of 12:42, May 25, 2024

As amended November 5, 1918:

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall hav [sic] a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense. [sic] unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penetentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

Editor Comments

This section contains many of the rights granted by the state constitution to persons accused of a criminal offense.

It has been amended once. The 1918 amendment added the exception concerning antitrust prosecutions and a few typos.

—Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (citations omitted) ("We disagree. Our decision rests on our understanding of what Strickland requires and it discusses a possible interpretation of what Texas' right to counsel constitutional provision was originally intended to accomplish. . . . And, those few cases where this Court has interpreted a particular provision of the Texas Constitution as providing 'more protection' than its federal counterpart have either implicitly or explicitly criticized contemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence.")

Historic Decisions

Dendy v. Wilson, 179 S.W.2d 269, 276 (Tex. 1944) ("If this court were to say that the trial court had the right to compel these children to testify, then it would have to hold that the Act itself extends immunity from future prosecution to them. In effect, that decision would be a holding that . . . . In the absence of a clear manifestation of the legislative intent to reach that result, and in the face of expressed intent to the contrary in Section 12, this court will not so hold, regardless of the social desirability of obtaining testimony from delinquent children themselves.")

Ex parte Wilson, 47 S.W. 996, 1000 (Tex.Crim.App. 1898) ("In the nature of things, there could be no difference between his testifying before the grand jury or before the court. Our constitution provides: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.' Bill of Rights, § 10. And this was as much a criminal prosecution when entertained before the grand jury as if it had been before the court. . . . And in this day neither the legislature nor courts are authorized to violate these sacred provisions of our constitution.")

Library Resources

Vernon's Annotated Constitution of the State of Texas (this multi-volume and up-to-date resource is available at all law libraries and many municipal libraries)

The Texas State Constitution: A Reference Guide (this one-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)

The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis (this two-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)

Online Resources

Constitution of the State of Texas (1876) (this resource is published and maintained by the University of Texas School of Law)

Amendments to the Texas Constitution Since 1876 (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Council)

Reports Analyzing Proposed Amendments (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Reference Library)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Searches and Seizures"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:
+{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=As amended November 5, 1918:
-The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
+'''In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall hav [sic] a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense. [sic] unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penetentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.'''
 |editor=
-The text of this section generally tracks the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution, which reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
+This section contains many of the rights granted by the state constitution to persons accused of a criminal offense.
+It has been amended once. The 1918 amendment added the exception concerning antitrust prosecutions and a few typos.
 |recent=
-* ''Hulit v. State'', 982 S.W.2d 431, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2675282260661427505#p436 436] (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) ("It is our holding that Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution contains no requirement that a seizure or search be authorized by a warrant, and that a seizure or search that is otherwise reasonable will not be found to be in violation of that section because it was not authorized by a warrant. . . . We understand that our holding means that Section 9 of our Bill of Rights does not offer greater protection to the individual than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it may offer less protection.")
+* ''Hernandez v. State'', 988 S.W.2d 770, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11341083377953961730#p773 773] (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (citations omitted) ("We disagree. Our decision rests on our understanding of what ''Strickland'' requires and it discusses a possible interpretation of what Texas' right to counsel constitutional provision was originally intended to accomplish. . . . And, those few cases where this Court has interpreted a particular provision of the Texas Constitution as providing 'more protection' than its federal counterpart have either implicitly or explicitly criticized contemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence.")
 |historic=
-* ''Santikos v. State'', 836 S.W.2d 631, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2185383091456472977#p632 632] n.1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (citations omitted) ("We note that appellant challenges the constitutionality of . . . . Moreover, when this Court has previously addressed both federal and state constitutional challenges to Section 101.04, T.A.B.C., it has relied on Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, we shall not distinguish between the constitutional provisions, but find them to be the same for the purpose of analyzing the constitutionality of the warrantless administrative search provision in Section 101.04.")
+* ''Dendy v. Wilson'', 179 S.W.2d 269, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/179_SW2_269.pdf#page=8 276] (Tex. 1944) ("If this court were to say that the trial court had the right to compel these children to testify, then it would have to hold that the Act itself extends immunity from future prosecution to them. In effect, that decision would be a holding that . . . . In the absence of a clear manifestation of the legislative intent to reach that result, and in the face of expressed intent to the contrary in Section 12, this court will not so hold, regardless of the social desirability of obtaining testimony from delinquent children themselves.")
-* ''Heitman v. State'', 815 S.W.2d 681, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8989436856623000547#p690 690] (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (footnote omitted) ("Therefore, given the foregoing reasons and the numerous decisions tacitly addressing the 'interpretation issue', we now expressly conclude that this Court, when analyzing and interpreting Art. I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the comparable Fourth Amendment issue. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that state constitutions cannot subtract from the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but they can provide additional rights to their citizens.")
-* ''Brown v. State'', 657 S.W.2d 797, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3685216097234250292#p799 799] (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) ("But it is not the function of the judiciary to engraft such changes upon our Constitution. . . . Since this Court's pronouncements in ''Crowell v. State'', ''supra'', almost forty years ago, there has been no groundswell to change the provisions of Article I, Section 9. And since that time, this Court has opted to interpret our Constitution in harmony with the Supreme Court's opinions interpreting the Fourth Amendment. We shall continue on this path until such time as we are statutorily or constitutionally mandated to do otherwise.")
+* ''Ex parte Wilson'', 47 S.W. 996, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/047_SW_996.pdf#page=5 1000] (Tex.Crim.App. 1898) ("In the nature of things, there could be no difference between his testifying before the grand jury or before the court. Our constitution provides: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.' Bill of Rights, § 10. And this was as much a criminal prosecution when entertained before the grand jury as if it had been before the court. . . . And in this day neither the legislature nor courts are authorized to violate these sacred provisions of our constitution.")
-|seo_title=Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution ("Searches and Seizures")
+|seo_title=Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution ("Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions")
-|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 9, unreasonable search, probable cause
+|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 10, Texas Bill of Rights, criminal defendants
-|seo_description=The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches.
+|seo_description=This section contains many of the rights extended by the state constitution to a person accused of a criminal offense.
 |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights