Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hatten v. State (texcrimapp, 2002-03-13)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hatten v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Hatten v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868, 871 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tony Arroyo v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
App. 2000), which overruled that portion of Geesa that required the jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt." Arroyo , 32 S.W.3d at 868.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arroyo v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our decision, stating, “At the time the Court of Appeals decided this case, it did not have the benefit of our opinion in Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), which overruled that portion of Geesa that required the jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt.” Arroyo, 32 S.W.3d at 868.
cited Cited "see" Baker v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); see also Bordman v. State, 56 S.W.3d 63, 72 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet’n refd).
cited Cited "see" Holden Meril Baker v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); see also Bordman v. State, 56 S.W.3d 63, 72 (Tex.App. ‑ Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet = n ref'd).
cited Cited "see" Fred Marshall Davis v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State , 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Colbert v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
cited Cited "see" Derory Dewayne Colbert v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868, 868 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Bordman v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), reversing the court of appeals reversal of the case for failure to comply with Geesa .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rodriguez v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Arroyo v. State, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Luis Felipe Rodriguez, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Arroya, 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Luis Felipe Rodriguez, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Arroya , 32 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. Crim.
Tony ARROYO, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas
0288-00.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec 6, 2000.
32 S.W.3d 868
Stephanie Stevens, Velia J. Meza, San Antonio, for appellant., Betty Marshall, Asst. St. Atty., Austin, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., for State.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

The opinion of the Court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of assault and assessed punishment at confinement for one year and a $4000 fine. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Arroyo v. State, 9 S.W.3d 380 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999).

The State seeks discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court erred by omitting two sentences from the jury instruction required by Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). At the time the Court of Appeals decided this case, it did not have the benefit of our opinion in Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), which overruled that portion of Geesa that required the jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, we grant ground one of the State Prosecuting Attorney’s petition, and vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment. We remand this cause to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Paulson and for consideration of Appellant’s remaining points of error. The State Prosecuting Attorney’s second ground for review and the District Attorney s petition for discretionary review are dismissed without prejudice.