green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 8×
96.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2022–2024 ·
…xtraneous offenses are admissible to rebut defensive theories raised by the testimony of a state's witness during cross-examination.
at p. 301
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James Edward Porter IV v. the State of Texas
xtraneous offenses are admissible to rebut defensive theories raised by the testimony of a state's witness during cross-examination.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Giovanni Mora v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in determining whether the accused participated as a party, the 15 court may look to events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eloy Heraclio Alcala v. State
in determining whether the accused participated as a party, the court may look to events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Norman Kent Adams II v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
xtraneous offenses are admissible to rebut defensive theories raised by the testimony of a state's witness during cross- examination.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eloy Jiovanni Perez Alcala v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
evidence is sufficient to convict under the law of parties where the defendant is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bictor Guzman v. the State of Texas
xtraneous offenses are admissible to rebut defensive theories raised by the testimony of a state's witness during cross-examination.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gregory Louis Branham v. State
when the evidence is sufficient to support both primary and party theories of liability, the trial court does not err in submitting an instruction on the law of parties.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Patrick Kirk Pitzer v. State
we have held that criminal acts that are designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, conviction, or incarceration for the offense on trial are admissible under rule 404(b) as showing 'consciousness of guilt.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eduardo Aceves A/K/A Eduardo Rodriguez Aceves v. the State of Texas
“A court may also rely on circumstantial evidence to prove party status.” Id. (citing Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gustavo Tijerina Sandoval v. the State of Texas
“Evidence is sufficient to convict under the law of parties where the defendant is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement.” Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 302; Gomez v. State, No. 13-99-189- CR, 2001 WL 34615481 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 26, 2001, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cameron Dontae Robinson v. the State of Texas
App. 2008) (opening statement); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jermiah Issac Glenn v. the State of Texas
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
But, under a Rule 403 analysis, courts routinely allow the admission of an extraneous offense when it is of a character that “pales in comparison to the primary offense,” see Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 301 (burglary of a motor vehicle vs. murder), or is “no more heinous” than the charged offense, see Taylor v. State, 920 S.W.2d 319, 323 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Wade Briggs v. the State of Texas
App. 2012) (citing Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Wade Briggs v. the State of Texas
App. 2012) (citing Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Don Doyle Gordon, Jr. v. the State of Texas
App. 2005); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James Edward Hunter v. the State of Texas
App. 2008) (opening statement); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alexander Holland v. the State of Texas
“When the evidence is sufficient to support both primary and party theories of liability, the trial court does not err in submitting an instruction on the law of parties.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)(op. on reh’g); Bell v. State, No. 03-00-00243-CR, 2001 WL 1510836 , at *6 (Tex.App.—Austin Nov. 29, 2001, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication); see also Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523, 529 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Holley, II v. the State of Texas
It has long been the law in this state that criminal acts designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, conviction, or incarceration for the offense on trial are admissible under Rule 404(b) as showing “consciousness of guilt.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 299 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stacie Michelle Moore v. State
App. 2005); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cameron Keith Brown v. State
App. 2001) (explaining that defense’s opening statement asserting he lacked opportunity to molest the complainant under the charged circumstances opened the door to 11 admission of extraneous-offense evidence that defendant molested others under almost identical circumstances to rebut the defense’s lack of opportunity defensive theory); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Craig DeAllen Davison v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Evidence is sufficient to convict under the law of parties if the defendant is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement.” Barnes, 585 S.W.3d at 649 (quoting Rosillo v. State, 953 S.W.2d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christ 1997, pet. ref’d) (citing Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 302).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metcalf, Lydia
App. 2012) (citing Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony David Lee Leoning v. State
Regarding Rule 404(b),2 “criminal acts . . . designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, conviction, or incarceration for the offense on trial are admissible under Rule 404(b) as showing ‘consciousness of guilt.’” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 299 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Reynaldo Zamora Banegas v. State
Gross, 380 S.W.3d at 186 ; Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adrian Valadez v. State
App. 2005); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Everett Dale Webb v. State
App. 2005); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Julian Andrew Luna
See Gross, 380 S.W.3d at 186 ; Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)(opn. on reh’g).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Julian Andrew Luna
Id. (citing Wygal v. State, 555 S.W.2d 465, 468-69 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977)); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)); see also Romero, 2012 WL 3834917 , at *4.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Demetrius Wheeler v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The jury may consider “events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lydia Metcalf v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Carson, 422 S.W.3d at 742 (citing Powell, 194 S.W.3d at 506 ; Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 302; Cordova, 698 S.W.2d at 111 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenny Markell Mitchell v. State
The jury may consider “events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronnie Cofty Jr. v. State
(2×)
To determine whether a defendant participated in an offense, a jury may consider “events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on 11 actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 302.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Estrada v. State
Evidence can be sufficient to convict under the law of parties where a defendant “is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (op. on reh’g).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brendan Xavier Douglas v. State
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (op. on reh’g) (citing Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. State
Legally Sufficient Evidence Supports the Finding that there Was an Agreement Between Jackson and Dean to Commit Aggravated Robbery “Evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant under the law of parties where he is physically present at the commission of the offense, and encourages the commission of the offense by words or other agreement.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); see Beier v.'State, 687 S.W.2d 2, 3 (Tex.Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child
P. 279. [101] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 , 76 S.Ct. 158 , 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). [102] See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (holding that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 52(b), "plain error" in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court); Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 588 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 303 (Tex.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman, Tavaris Don
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The jury may consider "events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act." Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Evender Gene Jackson v. State
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cruz-Garcia, Obel
App. 1989) (“Whether or not it neatly fits one of [the 404(b)] categories, an extraneous transaction will be admissible so long as it logically tends to make the existence of some fact of consequence more or less probable.”); Johnston, 145 S.W.3d at 220 (“This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.”). 49 Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 299 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tavaris Don Coleman v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The jury may consider “events occurring before, during and after the 4 commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ricardo Beltran v. State
App. 2012) (citing to Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beltran, Ricardo v. State
Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (citing to Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). 15 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffery Noblett v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“In determining whether the accused participated as a party, the [trial] court may look to events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Siros, Stephen William
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children
P. 279. [101] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 , 76 S.Ct. 158 , 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). [102] See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (holding that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 52(b), "plain error" in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court); Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 588 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 303 (Tex.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in the Interest of S. R.- M. C.
P. 279. [101] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 , 76 S.Ct. 158 , 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). [102] See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (holding that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 52(b), "plain error" in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court); Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 588 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 303 (Tex.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.
CODE art. 44.29(c) (providing for new punishment hearing in the case of a capital murder conviction when error affects punishment only); Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 298 (holding that voir dire error in a capital murder case on an issue the jury would only consider at punishment constitutes error affecting punishment and thus calling for a new punishment hearing).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John Michael Jones v. State
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John Michael Jones v. State
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Williams v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
PENAL CODE ANN. § 7.02(a); Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 302.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sandra PETERSON, Petitioner,
v.
Juan Villegas REYNA and Howard Shadrock, Individually and D/B/A Shadrock Trucking Company, Respondents
v.
Juan Villegas REYNA and Howard Shadrock, Individually and D/B/A Shadrock Trucking Company, Respondents
95-1123.
Texas Supreme Court.
Apr 12, 1996.
Daniel J.T. Sciano, Ronald J. Salazar, San Antonio, for Petitioner., W. Wendell Hall, Rene A. Forinash, Edward T. Hecker, Terrence J. Martin, San Antonio, for Respondents.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (3)
PER CURIAM.
This is a personal injury action. Petitioner, Sandra Peterson, appeals from the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment in her favor. We grant writ of error and modify the court of appeals’ judgment to delete the assessment of costs against petitioner. Because the petitioner satisfied the requirements set out in Tex. R.App.P. 40(a)(3) to prosecute the appeal as an indigent, all parties agree that the court of appeals erred in its assessment of costs against her. As to the remainder of the court of appeals’ judgment, for which there is no opinion of the court because each justice on the panel submitted a separate opinion, there is “no error which requires reversal, or which is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the State as to require correction.” Tex.R.App.P. 133(a).