Hampton v. State (2002)
green
· 632 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Jerome Lydale Anderson v. State (2015)
S.W.3d 63, 67 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000)………………...25 Gonzales v. State, 505 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1974)………………………..25 Reese v. State, 905 S.W.2d 631, 636 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d, untimely filed)………………………………………………………………….…25 James v. State, 997 S.W.2d 898 , 901 n. 5 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1999, no pet.)..26 Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.)…..27 Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.1979)…27 In…
green
Christopher Michael Carman v. the State of Texas (2025)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 613 (Tex. Crim.
green
Brandon Duane McDaniel Jr. v. the State of Texas (2021)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Jesse Hinojo v. the State of Texas (2025)
To establish reversible error under Brady, a defendant must show: (1) the State failed to disclose the evidence, regardless of the prosecution’s good or bad faith; (2) the withheld evidence is favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence is material in that “there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Cristina Belen Gutierrez v. the State of Texas (2024)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Pedro Enrique Felix v. the State of Texas (2024)
App. 2011) (stating that the mere possibility that undisclosed information might have affected the outcome of defendant’s case does not establish materiality); Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.”
green
Rondale Gerrod Farris v. the State of Texas (2024)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Jordan Tyrel Ballard v. State (2019)
An appellant must show that, “in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Marcus Williams v. State (2019)
An appellant must show that, “in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Herman Edward Hoffman v. State (2018)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Kathleen Elaina Hoffman v. State (2018)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Vicente Saldana v. State (2016)
BRADY VIOLATION Saldana argues the State withheld Schroeder’s expert witness opinion in violation of Brady v. Maryland and that counsel was ineffective in “fail[ing] to uncover Brady material.” To establish a Brady violation, the record must show that (1) the State suppressed evidence, (2) the suppressed evidence favors the defendant, and (3) “there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Hampton …
green
Walter Louis Jackson Junior v. State (2015)
App. 2010) ................................19 Flores v. State, 827 S.W.2d 416, 418 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d) ...............................................................................................................................20 Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 1058 (2013) ......................................................31 Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1414-15 (2013) ................................... 7, 22, 25 Hampton v. State, 86…
green
Trace Rogers Smith v. State (2015)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 19 iii LIST OF AUTHORITIES CASE NAME PAGE Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)……….11 Hafdahl v. State, 805 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990)…………….........11 Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137, 171 (Tex.App.—Austin 2009, no pet)……..........13 Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)……………...….12 Jones v. State, 711 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)………………………13 Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 811 (Tex.Cri…
green
Wilkins, Terrance Germaine (2015)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Terrance Germaine Wilkins v. State (2015)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Alejandro C. Garza, Jr. v. State (2009)
Id. (“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed evidence might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense.”).
“The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed evidence might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense.”
green
Zachary Jabe Riley v. the State of Texas (2026)
“Materiality requires more than the mere possibility that the information might help the defense or affect the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 922 (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Ricardo Gonzales, Jr. v. the State of Texas (2025)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Ricky Lee Reyes v. the State of Texas (2025)
To be reversible error, a defendant must show that (1) “the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the prosecution’s good or bad faith;” (2) “the withheld evidence is favorable to him;” and (3) “the evidence is material, that is, there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Ex Parte Frances Nwosuocha v. the State of Texas (2024)
Ex parte Lalonde, 570 S.W.3d at 725 ; Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d at 870 . “‘Under Brady, an applicant bears the burden of showing that in light of all the evidence it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecution made a timely disclosure.’” Ex parte Lalonde, 570 S.W.3d at 725 (quoting Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Brian James Lopez v. the State of Texas (2023)
“Under Brady, the materiality of undisclosed information is not sufficiently proven by showing a mere possibility that undisclosed information might have helped in the defense or that the undisclosed information might have affected the outcome of the trial.” Kelly v. State, 413 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.) (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
Therefore, we conclude that Guerra has not met his burden to show that a Brady violation occurred.11 See Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Wesley Eugene Perkins v. the State of Texas (2022)
To show materiality, “the defendant must 9 show that, ‘in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Carsten Hedemann v. State (2021)
App. 2011) (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Elton Wayne Holmes v. State (2020)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 83; Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)
green
Francisco Escobedo v. State (2020)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Zachery James Hernandez v. State (2020)
“When evaluating whether the materiality standard is satisfied, the strength of the exculpatory evidence is balanced against the evidence supporting conviction.” Pena, 353 S.W.3d at 812 (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 613 (Tex. Crim.
green
Jesse Vasquez v. State (2020)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Thomas Mayhew v. State (2020)
App. 2019) (quoting Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Micah Loy Vasek v. State (2019)
“Under Brady, the defendant bears the burden of showing that, in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
John S. Young v. State (2019)
However, “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10 (1976)
green
Jonathan Huff v. State (2019)
The defendant has a similar burden in the context of a Brady claim: he must show, among other requirements, that the undisclosed evidence was material, i.e., that “there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” See Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Jerel Smith v. State (2019)
App. 2011) (describing required showing to support reversal under Brady and Bagley (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Leonard Earl White-Williams v. State (2019)
Lempar v. State, 191 S.W.3d 230, 240 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. -7- 04-18-00115-CR, 04-18-00116-CR & 04-18-00117-CR ref’d) (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Talawrence Donyea Tennell v. State (2018)
App. 2011); Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
James Earl Rolling, Sr. v. State (2018)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Talawrence Donyea Tennell v. State (2018)
App. 2011); Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Kenneth Boyd v. State (2018)
App. 2011) (quoting Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Morris v. State (2017)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Nayajah Niya Davis v. State (2016)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
In the MATTER OF E.O.E., a Juvenile (2016)
Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 809 (Tex.Crim.App.2011), citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). *625 Where, as here, the evidence is disclosed during trial, the materiality question turns on whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delayed disclosure.
green
Trace Rogers Smith v. State (2016)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
James Jordan v. State (2015)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Temple, David Mark (2015)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
holding that mere possibility that item of undisclosed information might have helped defense or might have affected outcome of trial does not establish “materiality” in constitutional sense
green
Reich, Todd Allen (2015)
App. 2012) (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
Willie Owens III v. State (2015)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 613 (Tex. Crim.
green
Todd Allen Reich v. State (2015)
App. 2012) (citing Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim.
green
State v. Steve Marston (2015)
Bagley’s definition of materiality is therefore consistent because “[u]sually, a determination concerning the materiality prong of Brady involves balancing the strength of the exculpatory evidence against the evidence supporting conviction.” Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 613 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).