James Paul Collier, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing voir dire questions about parole eligibility, in not holding a competency hearing or appointing a disinterested expert, in allowing the defendant to represent himself, and in admitting expert testimony at the competency hearing; Justice Overstreet dissented on the first issue, arguing that parole eligibility information is relevant to future dangerousness and should be disclosed to the jury.