green
Positive treatment
Trending · 169 recent citers
Issue: abuse of discretion standardTX ↗
Issue: unitary punishment hearingTX ↗
Issue: mistrial errorTX ↗
Issue: appellate abuse of discretion standardTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
82.8 score
G Cite
cited 18× by 18 distinct cases, 2008–2025 ·
…helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.
at p. 842
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 13× by 12 distinct cases, 2008–2023 ·
…zone of reasonable disagreement.
at p. 841
⚠ not in text
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2008–2013 ·
…the admissibility of evidence at the punishment phase of a non-capital felony offense
at p. 842
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Brown v. State
we review a trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Don Lee Lewis Jr. v. the State of Texas
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Torres v. the State of Texas
Evidence is “relevant to sentencing,” within the meaning of the statute, if the evidence is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy Allen Harris v. the State of Texas
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Dillon v. the State of Texas
App. 2007) (quoting Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradford Allen Thompson v. the State of Texas
Evidence is relevant to punishment when “it is helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Issac Williams v. the State of Texas
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yovahnis Fabain Roque v. the State of Texas
Trial courts are in the best position to resolve questions of admissibility, therefore appellate courts will uphold a trial court’s decision on 10 admissibility as long as the decision is not outside the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Geovanni Jesus Alvarez-Rodriguez v. the State of Texas
App. 2007) (quoting Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Earl Martin v. the State of Texas
The card with Appellant’s fingerprints was admitted without objection as State’s exhibit 41. 16 sentencing if the evidence is “helpful to the [factfinder] in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dexter Lafayettee Triplett v. State of Texas
Evidence is relevant if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Luther Hawk v. the State of Texas
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the [factfinder] in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny Len Kellogg v. the State of Texas
“That said, even if punishment-phase evidence is deemed relevant, it is subject to analysis under Rule 403.”10 Gilbert, 575 S.W.3d at 871 (citing Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Terrance A. Bohanna v. the State of Texas
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if the evidence is “helpful to the [factfinder] in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Paul Calhoun v. State
Evidence is “relevant to sentencing,” within the meaning of the statute, if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” McGee, 233 S.W.3d at 318 (citing Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Nino v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Houston Wells v. State
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Amende v. State
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Amende v. State
Evidence is relevant to sentencing if it is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gavin Heath Gilbert v. State
That said, even if punishment-phase evidence is deemed relevant, it is subject to analysis under Rule 403. 19 Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lane Hugh Brown v. State
(2×)
The court of criminal appeals has noted that “admissibility of evidence at the punishment phase of a non-capital felony offense is a function of policy rather than relevance.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Francisco Salazar v. State
App. 1999)); Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jamail Wallace v. State
Ann. art. 38.20 § 5(b) (West Supp. 2017). 15 admissibility, therefore appellate courts will uphold a trial court’s decision on admissibility as long as the decision is not outside the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
George Ray Holmes v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Lee Smith v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Landers v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Anthony Cole Phillips v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tiffany Lynn Lewis v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Evidence is “relevant to sentencing,” within the meaning of the statute, if the evidence is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Lorenzo Wilson v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Efrain Lopez v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Burton v. State, 230 S.W.3d 846, 849 (TexApp.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Hernandez v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). 3 Appellant’s counsel stated the 12-pack was “intact.” The trial court noted, however, that “it’s opened.” Defense counsel noted that of the five visible cans in the photo, only two were not open. 4 Pursuant to Rule 403, the trial court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” TEX.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marianne Marek v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordero Brown v. State
Therefore, no error has been shown under Rule 404(b). 28 Nevertheless, even if punishment-phase evidence is deemed relevant, it is subject to analysis under Rule 403.17 Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David Rodriguez v. State
App. 2010); Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert Villareal v. State
App. 2009); Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andres Alfredo Segovia v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Sandoval v. State, 409 S.W.3d 259, 297 (Tex.App.—Austin 2013, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reginald Reece v. State
(2×)
App. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11 Hill v. State, 426 S.W.3d 868, 877 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2014) ................ 7 Lindsey v. State, 102 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Geneva Doris Vasquez v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans, Deon Reese
Appellant relies solely on his rule 403 objection on appeal. 20 Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicolas C. Flores v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Dunte Luster v. State
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.18 A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles.19 When considering a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, we will not reverse the ruling unless it falls outside the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” 20 Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence for the truth of the matter asserted.21 Hearsay is inadmissible unless there is an exception allowing for its admission.22 Hearsa…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Dunte Luster v. State
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.18 A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles.19 When considering a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, we will not reverse the ruling unless it falls outside the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” 20 Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence for the truth of the matter asserted.21 Hearsay is inadmissible unless there is an exception allowing for its admission.22 Hearsa…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deon Reese Evans v. State
Appellant relies solely on his rule 403 objection on appeal. 20 Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyrone Gaynell Conelly v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nico Allen-Antonio Cogdill v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gboweh Dickson George v. State
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Matthew Saenz v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mario Arteaga v. State
Under Rule 403, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if the evidence is within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Saul Carrizales Loera v. State
Loera v. State Page 4 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Damian Ricardo Flores v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Evidence is relevant to sentencing within the meaning of the statute if the evidence is “helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 842 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); see Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (describing admissibility of evidence at punishment as “function of policy rather than relevancy,” and decision of what punishment to assess as “a normative process”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert W. CARY, M.D., Petitioner,
v.
Mitch ALFORD, Respondent
v.
Mitch ALFORD, Respondent
05-1018.
Texas Supreme Court.
Sep 22, 2006.
Wayne Clawater, Stephen R. Bailey, Allison Standish Miller, Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen, L.L.P., Houston, for Petitioner., Steven B. Thorpe, Carla S. Hatcher, Thorpe, Hatcher & Washington, L.L.P., Dallas, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this combined bill-of-review and medical-malpractice appeal is whether the defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to establish that his failure to answer was an accident rather than conscious indifference. The trial court held that it was, set aside a default judgment for $1,951,188.00, and granted a new trial. Two years later, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant.
The Twelfth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant’s bill-of-review affidavit was conclusory. — S.W.3d -, 2005 WL 2665442. We recently clarified the standard of review when service papers are lost. See Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 575-76 (Tex.2006) (per curiam).
Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court to reconsider this issue in light of our recent decision. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, 60.2(f).