Clarity Home Page

Adjudication (1.):

The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a "determination." It contemplates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Advert (4.):

To call attention to or refer to.

Appellant (1.):

The party who takes an appeal from one court or jurisdiction to another. Used broadly or non-technically, the term includes one who sues out a writ of error.

Arrest (1.):

To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand.

Go Top

---

Beyond a reasonable doubt (1.):

In evidence means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty; and phrase is the equivalent of the words clear, precise and indubitable. In criminal case, the accused's guilt must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt," which means that facts proven must, by virtue of their probative force, establish guilt.

Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not beyond all possible or imaginary doubt, but such proof as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support. It is proof "to a moral certainty"; such proof as satisfies the judgment and consciences of the jury, as reasonable men, and applying their reason to the evidence before them, that the crime charged has been committed by the defendant, and so satisfies them as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible.

"Reasonable doubt" is the standard used to determine the guilt or innocence of a person criminally charged. To be guilty of a crime, one must be proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt which will justify acquittal is doubt based on reason and arising from evidence or lack of evidence, and it is doubt which reasonable man or woman might entertain, and it is not fanciful doubt, is not imagined doubt, and is not doubt that juror might conjure up to avoid performing unpleasant task or duty. Reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause prudent men to hesitate before acting in matters of importance to themselves. Doubt based on reason which arises from evidence or lack of evidence.

This is a term often used, probably quite well understood, but not easily defined. It does not mean a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It's that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. If upon proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal; for it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one, arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary, but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty, i.e., a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends upon considerations of a moral nature, should go further than this, and require absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether.

A "reasonable doubt" is such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent man in the graver and more important affairs of life to pause and hesitate to act upon the truth of the matter charged. But a reasonable doubt is not a mere possibility of innocence, nor a caprice, shadow, or speculation as to innocence not arising out of the evidence or the want of it.

• Austin v. State, 1990 - 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8

Bill of exception (1.):

A formal statement in writing of the objections or exceptions taken by a party during the trial of a cause to the decisions, rulings, or instructions of the trial judge, stating the objection, with the facts and circumstances on which it is founded, and, in order to attest its accuracy, signed by the judge; the object being to put the controvorted rulings or decisions upon the record for the information of the appellate court.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1

Go Top

---

Conjunctive (1.):

Connecting in a manner denoting union. A grammatical term for particles which serve for joining or connecting together. Thus, the word "and" is called a "conjunctive," and "or" a "disjunctive," conjunction.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Criminal charge(1.):

An accusation of crime, formulated in a written complaint, information, or indictment, and taking shape in a prosecution.

Culpable (1.):

Blamable; censurable; criminal; at fault; involving the breach of a legal duty or the commission of a fault. That which is deserving of moral blame.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

---

Defer(1.):

Delay, put off, postpone to a future time.

Deferred adjudication :

A form of probation in which there is no finding of guilt and people can wipe their records clean if they stay out of trouble for a certain period of time. (This statement was found in an Associated Press article.)

• Illegal busts - 1

de minimis (1.):

(from the Latin, "de minimis no curat lex") The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Disjunctive Allegation

Assertions that a defendant committed one or the other of two potential acts, generally not providing the defendant with sufficient notice of the charges or claims against him.

Similar to term "disjunction" which is defined as separately or severally.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

---

Egregious (1.):

Remarkable in a bad sense; gross, flagrant, shocking.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

En Banc(1.):

(In the bench. Full bench.) Refers to a session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the decision rather than the regular quorum. When the issues involved are unusually novel or of wide impact, the case will be heard and decided by the full court sitting en banc.

Entrapment (2.):

"occurs when a person is induced to violate the law by a law enforcement agent. One who merely takes advantage of an opportunity provided by police is not entrapped. The question is whether the action of the police would have been likely to induce one with innocent intentions to commit a crime - Did they actually implant a criminal design in the mind of the defendant? This, of course, is the defense raised in many police and FBI "sting" operations.

Entrapment case at the federal court of appeals level.

Articles about entrapment:

• The Entrapment Debate.
• Entrapment.
• Court Says Agents Went Too Far in Online Sting.

Ex parte (1.):

On one side only; by or for one party; done for, in behalf of, or on the application of, one party only. "Ex parte," in the heading of a reported case, signifies that the name following is that of the party upon whose application the case is heard.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

---

Fee (1.):

A recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or compensation for a particular act or service. A fixed charge or perquisite charged as recompense for labor, reward, compensation, or wage given to a person for performance of services or something done or to be done.

• Tisdale v. State: 1 , 2

Go Top

---

Hearsay (1.):

A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others. Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and, as such, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissable unless it falls within one of the many exceptions which provides for admissibility.

Go Top

---

Id. (1.):

(from Idem) Latin. The same; used to indicate a reference previously made.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Impeach (1.):

To dispute, disparage, deny, or contradict.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1

Impute (1.):

As used in legal phrases, this word means attributed vicariously; that is, an act, fact, or quality is said to be "imputed" to a person when it is ascribed or charged to him, not because he is personally cognizant of it or responsible for it, but because another person is, over whom he has control or for whose acts or knowledge he is responsible.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1

Intendment (1.):

The true meaning, the correct understanding or intention of the law. A presumption or inference made by the courts.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Intent (1.):

Design, resolve, or determination with which a person acts. A state of mind in which a person seeks to accomplish a given result through a course of action.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Inter alia (1.):

Among other things. A term anciently used in pleading, especially in reciting statutes, where the whole statute was not set forth at length.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

---

Miscegenation (4.):

Interbreeding of ethnic stocks or races.

Moral turpitude (1.):

The act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished from others.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6

Myth (4.):

A collective opinion, belief, or ideal that is based on false premises or is the product of fallacious reasoning. For example:

• A vice cop will not get undressed during a session. Debunk 1, Debunk 2
• A vice cop will not touch a woman's naked breast or naked genitals. Debunk 1
• Consenting adults, in the privacy of their homes, have a right to privacy that excludes them from prostitution statutes. Debunk 1 , Debunk 2 ,

Go Top

---

Nolo contendere (1.):

Latin phrase meaning "I will not contest it"; a plea in a criminal case which has a similar legal effect as pleading guilty. Type of plea which may be entered with leave of court to a criminal complaint or indictment by which the defendant does not admit or deny the charges, though a fine or sentence may be imposed pursuant to it. The principal difference between a plea of guilty and a plea of nolo contendere is that the latter may not be used against the defendant in a civil action based upon the same acts. As such, this plea is particularly popular in antitrust actions where the likelihood of civil actions following in the wake of a successful antitrust prosecution is very great.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1

Go Top

---

Pander (1.): n.

One who caters to the lust of others; a male bawd, a pimp, or procurer.

v. To pimp; to cater to the gratification of the lust of another. To entice or procur a female, by promises, threats, fraud, or artifice, to enter any place in which prostitution is practiced, for the purpose of prostitution. Pandering is established when evidence shows that accused has succeeded in inducing his victim to become engaged in prostitution.

• GUYTON v. State, Jan. 9, 1963 is an historical case that provides insight into the evolution of the subtle difference in meaning between "pander" and "procure."

Panderer (1.):

One who solicits for prostitute. A pimp.

Payment(1.):

"The fulfilment of a promise, or the performance of an agreement. A discharge of an obligation or debt, and part payment, if accepted, is a discharge pro tanto.
In a more restricted legal sense payment is the performance of a duty, promise, or obligation, or discharge of a debt or liability, by the delivery of money or other value by a debtor to a creditor, where the money or other valuable thing is tendered and accepted as extinguishing debt or obligation in whole or part. Also the money or other thing so delivered. U.C.C. 2-511, 3-604.
Payment is a delivery of money or its equivalent in either specific property or services by one person from whom it is due to another person to whom it is due. Sezimore v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., 225 Tenn. 226, 465 S.W. 2d 873, 875. A discharge in money or its equivalent of an obligation or debt owing by one person to another, and is made by debtor's delivery to creditor of money or some other valuable thing, and creditor's receipt thereof, for purpose of extinguishing debt. Allmon v. Allmon, Mo. App., 306 S.W. 2d 651, 655."

• see fee

Penumbra (4.):

A partial shadow.

Privacy, Right to :

• Right of personal privacy as constitutionally protected, Tisdale v. State, 1982
• Language justifying government regulation, Tisdale v. State, 1982

Probative (1.):

In the law of evidence, means having the effect of proof; tending to prove, or actually proving an issue; that it furnishes, establishes, or contributes toward proof.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Procurer (1.):

One who prevails upon, induces or persuades a person to do something. One who procures for another the gratification of his lusts; a pimp; a panderer. One who solicits trade for a prostitute or lewd woman. One that procures the seduction or prostitution of girls. One who brings the seller and the buyer together so that the seller has an opportunity to sell.

• GUYTON v. State, Jan. 9, 1963 is an historical case that provides insight into the evolution of the subtle difference in meaning between "pander" and "procure."

Property, lost(1.):

" Property which the owner has involuntarily parted with, through neglect, carelessness or inadvertence, and does not know where to find or recover it, not including rpoperty which he has intentionally concealed or deposited in a secrete place for safe keeping. . . . A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, with purpose to deprive the owner thereof, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have it."

Property, mislaid (1.):

"Property which the owner has voluntarily parted with, with the intention of retrieving it later, but which cannot now be found. Does not include intentionally hidden property, and is distinguished from "lost" property which the owner has parted with casually and involuntarily. Rofrano v. Duffy, C.A.N.Y., 291 F. 2d 848, 850."

Proscribe (1.):

Prohibit, denounce as unwanted or dangerous.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Prosecute(1.):

To follow up; to carry on an action or other judicial proceeding; to proceed against a person criminally. To "prosecute" an action is not merely to commence it, but includes following it to an ultimate conclusion.

Prostitution (1.):

"Act of performing, or offering or agreeing to perform a sexual act for hire. Engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct with another person under a fee arrangement with that person or any other person. Ariz. Crim. Code 13-3211(5). Includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration. Cal. Penal Law 647(b). Within meaning of statute proscribing prostitution, comprises conduct of all male and female persons who engage in sexual activity as a business. Com. v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 372 N.E. 2d 196, 203."

Prostitution (2.):

"Another statute defines a public nuisance as follows:

• Promotion or aggravated promotion of prostitution
Compelling prostitution

Go Top

---

Quell (1.):

Put an end to, suppress, extinguish.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

---

Receive (1.):

"To take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect."

Remand (1.):

To send back. The act of an appellate court when it sends a case back to the trial court and orders the trial court to conduct limited new hearings or an entirely new trial, or to take some other further action.

• Trippell v. State, 1976 - 1 , 2

Go Top

---

Solicitation (1.):

Asking; enticing; urgent request. The inchoate offense of requesting or encouraging someone to engage in illegal conduct. Any action which the relation of the parties justifies in construing into a serious request. Thus "solicitation of prostitution" is the asking or urging a person to engage in prostitution.

For the crime of solicitation to be completed, it is only necessary that the actor, with intent that another person commit a crime, have enticed, advised, incited, ordered or otherwise encouraged that person to commit a crime. The crime solicited need not be committed.

A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.

Stare decisis (1.):

To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.

Sting (1.):

An undercover police operation in which police pose as criminals to trap law violators.

• Reverse sting by a 17 year old girl.

Sua sponte (1.):

Of his or its own will or motion; voluntarily; without prompting or suggestion.
Examples of usage: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Supra (1.):

Latin. Above; upon. This word occurring by itself in a book refers the reader to a previous part of the book.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Surplusage (1.):

Extraneous, impertinent, superfluous, or unnecessary matter. Allegations of matter wholly foreign and impertinent to the cause.

Go Top

---

Tort (3.):

Civil wrong arising from one's breach of a duty owed to another rather than from breach of contract.

Go Top

---

Vagrancy (1.):

At common law, the act of going about from place to place by a person without visible means of support, who is idle, and who, though able to work for his or her maintenance, refuses to do so, but lives without labor or on the charity of others.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Verdict (1.):

From the Latin "veredictum," a true declaration. The formal decision or finding made by a jury, impaneled and sworn for the trial of a cause, and reported to the court (and accepted by it), upon the matters or questions duly submitted to them upon the trial.

• Frieling v. State, 2002 - 1

Go Top

1. "Black's Law Dictionary," by Henry Campbell Black, 6th Edition, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. 1990.
2. "Texas Law in Layman's Language," by Charles Turner and Ralph Walton, 5th Edition, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Tx. May 1995.
3. American Standard Law Dictionary
4."Standard College Dictionary," Funk & Wagnalls 1963.

Go Top

The Clarity site does not encourage nor condone illegal sexual conduct. Offering, agreeing, or engaging in sexual conduct for a fee is prostitution which is illegal in Texas. Illegal prostitution should be avoided. As consenting adults, it is hoped that we can safely enjoy the free sharing of sexual favors, if that is our desire.