green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 24×
252.8 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2003–2026 · 2 courts ·
…intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
at p. 487
⚠ not in text
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2023–2025 · 2 courts ·
…we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
at p. 493
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2008–2015 ·
…f the language can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce evidence other than his own testimony, the comment is not improper.
at p. 491
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dayton Joseph Gannon v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ALKAYYALI, TAREQ v. the State of Texas
we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tareq Alkayyali v. the State of Texas
we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
William Edward Bender v. the State of Texas
we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kenvairiay Jevera Smith v. the State of Texas
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Patrick Shawn Elizondo v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
we conclude that because the facts, as applied to the law in the application paragraph, pointed the jury to the appropriate portion of the definitions, no harm resulted from the court's failure to limit the definitions of culpable mental states
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
in Re Michael Gene Walker
ppellant is not entitled to hybrid representation. . . . hence, nothing is presented for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eledis Fernandez v. State
the state was further required to prove that appellant committed this intentional murder while in the course of committing or attempting to commit burglary of a habitation.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Joseph D. Cancino v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a remark that calls attention to the absence of evidence which only the defendant could supply will result in reversal; however, if the language can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce evidence other than his own testimony, the comment is not improp…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Artur Sigalavillavicencio v. State
ppellant is not entitled to hybrid representation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Amilpas, Jose
f the ian- guage can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce e- vidence other than his own testimony/ the comment is not improper.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jose Amilpas v. State
f the language can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce evidence other than his own testimony, the comment is not improper.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lydell Grant v. State
ppellant is not entitled to hybrid representation. hence, nothing is presented for review.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Trent Archie v. State
a remark that calls attention to the absence of evidence which only the defendant could supply will result in reversal.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Anthony Wade Brown v. State
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused the extent of the injuries.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Innis Johnson v. State
capital murder is a result of conduct offense which also includes nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements depending upon the underlying conduct
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hernandez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Felipe Hernandez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Felipe Hernandez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Felipe Hernandez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Felipe Hernandez v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jonathan Mattix v. State
a mere indirect or implied allusion to the accused's failure to testify does not violate an appellant's rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Domingo Soto v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
f the language can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce evidence other than his own testimony, the comment is not improper.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Domingo Soto v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
f the language can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant's failure to produce evidence other than his own testimony, the comment is not improper.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny Edwards IV v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As a result, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote “that capital murder is a result of conduct offense which also includes nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements depending upon the underlying conduct which elevates the intentional murder to capital murder.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 491 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kevin Paul English v. the State of Texas
“It may also be inferred from the extent of the injuries and the [parties’] relative size and strength . . . .” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Davon Ford, Sr. v. the State of Texas
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ethan Carl Beckman v. the State of Texas
Evidence of flight provides circumstantial evidence of Beckman’s intentional and knowing murder of Jacob. - 15 - 04-24-00320-CR See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin Rex Lake v. the State of Texas
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy Wayne Snider Jr. v. the State of Texas
In addition, “[i]ntent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Raven Robert Rodriguez v. the State of Texas
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
However, “capital murder is a result of conduct offense which also includes nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements depending upon the underlying conduct which elevates the intentional murder to capital murder.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 491 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnathan Johnson v. the State of Texas
App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramon Jose Alvarez v. the State of Texas
“Intent can be inferred” “from the extent of the injuries” to the victim, the method used to produce the injuries, “and the relative size and strength of the parties.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William Dale Carter v. the State of Texas
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 493 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. the State of Texas
“Intent can be inferred from the extent of the injuries to the victim, the method used to produce the injuries, and the relative size and strength of the parties.” Martin v. State, 246 S.W.3d 246, 263 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert Gonzalez v. the State of Texas
App. 2004) (quoting Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 491 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodney Dewayne Kuykendall v. the State of Texas
We “may consider the degree, if any, to which the culpable mental states were limited by the application portions of the jury charge.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 492 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andres Lomas v. the State of Texas
See id. § 6.03(a) (defining “intentionally”); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clyde Dale Evans v. the State of Texas
App. 2001) (holding that an appellant is not entitled to “hybrid representation” on appeal) (quoting Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Corey Allen Trumbull v. the State of Texas
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas
A defendant has no right to hybrid representation, see Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Howard Jenkins v. the State of Texas
“Intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused,” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Randy Keith Kelsoe v. the State of Texas
“The requisite culpable mental state may also be inferred from the extent of injuries to the complainant, the method used to produce the injuries, and the relative size and strength of the parties.” Baldit v. State, 522 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Herrera v. State, 367 S.W.3d 762, 771 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Justin Ryan Corbisier v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ladamion Lamond Majors v. the State of Texas
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 492 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregory Alejandro Chavez v. the State of Texas
(2×)
“Intent can be inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused.” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nabor Marquiz Ramos v. the State of Texas
App. 2011). 9 And a “jury may infer the requisite mental state from (1) the acts, words, and conduct of the defendant, (2) the extent of the injuries to the victim, (3) the method used to produce the injuries, and (4) the relative size and strength of the parties.” Rhymes v. State, 536 S.W.3d 85 , 95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet. ref’d) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salvador Sanchez v. the State of Texas
Cf. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lane Devon Wootan v. the State of Texas
A “jury may infer the requisite mental state from (1) the acts, words, and conduct of the defendant, (2) the extent of the injuries to the victim, (3) the method used to produce the injuries, and (4) the relative size and strength of the parties.” Rhymes v. State, 536 S.W.3d 85 , 95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, pet. ref’d) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
E. Duff TRIMBLE & Estella Trimble, Petitioners,
v.
Charles ITZ D/B/A Itz Electric Company & Harold E. Hall Construction Co., Inc., Respondents
v.
Charles ITZ D/B/A Itz Electric Company & Harold E. Hall Construction Co., Inc., Respondents
95-0616.
Texas Supreme Court.
Sep 14, 1995.
Thomas S. Harmon, Valinda J. Astoria, San Antonio, for petitioners., Craig C. Radthe, Boerne, Larry J. Goldman, Daniel O. Kustoff, San Antonio, for respondents.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (3)
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners’ application for writ of error is denied. The Court neither approves nor disapproves of the court of appeals’ discussion of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 898 S.W.2d 370.