Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hayes v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 2015) (citing Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 662 ); see Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 1993) (“It is well-settled that a defend- ant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the jury charge.”); Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. | 25 | 34 |
Beltran, Ricardo v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“A defendant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the charge.” Beltran v. State, 472 S.W.3d 283, 290 (Tex. Crim. 2023“A defendant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the charge.” Beltran v. State, 472 S.W.3d 283, 290 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Day v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Warren v. State , supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Day v. State, 532 S.W.2d 302, 306 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976). 1987Warren v. State, supra, at 933-934; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Day v. State, 532 S.W.2d 302, 306 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). | 2 | 2 |
Simpkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Warren v. State , supra; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Day v. State, 532 S.W.2d 302, 306 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976). 1987Warren v. State, supra, at 933-934; Simpkins v. State, 590 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Day v. State, 532 S.W.2d 302, 306 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). | 2 | 2 |
Pennington v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Under the circumstances, and considering that a defendant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the jury charge, Pennington v. State, 54 S.W.3d 852, 856 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. refd), we cannot say Hubbard’s belief that action was immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm was unreasonable. 2004Under the circumstances, and considering that a defendant's testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the jury charge, Pennington v. State , 54 S.W.3d 852, 856 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd), we cannot say Hubbard's belief that action was immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm was unreasonable. | 2 | 2 |
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 2015) (citing Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 662 ); see Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. 2023App. 2015) (citing Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 662 ); see Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Getmangreen1 sentence2018Getman v. State, 255 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Trevino v. Stategreen1 sentence2016A defendant that presents evidence of sudden passion is entitled to an instruction on this mitigating circumstance “even if that evidence is weak, impeached, contradicted, or unbelievable.” Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Stefanoff v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Stefanoff v. State, 78 S.W.3d 496, 499-500 (Tex. App.— Austin 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ferrel v. Stategreen1 sentence2007This is particularly true when, as in the case here, appellant made a proper and timely request for such a charge." Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (citations omitted): See also Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)(evidence which raises the issue may be strong, weak, contradicted, unimpeached, or unbelievable). | 1 | 1 |
Muniz v. Stategreen1 sentence2007This is particularly true when, as in the case here, appellant made a proper and timely request for such a charge." Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (citations omitted): See also Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)(evidence which raises the issue may be strong, weak, contradicted, unimpeached, or unbelievable). | 1 | 1 |
Warren v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Warren v. State, 565 S.W.2d 931, 933-34 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. State
green
2 sentences2016App. 1993); Miller, 815 S.W.2d at 585 ; Shafer v. State, 919 S.W.2d 885 , 887 n.1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996, Hodges, Michael Alan 3 pet. ref’d) A defendant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the jury charge. 1994Id., Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (op. on reh’g). | 2 | 1994–2016 |
Shafer v. State
green
1 sentence2016App. 1993); Miller, 815 S.W.2d at 585 ; Shafer v. State, 919 S.W.2d 885 , 887 n.1 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1996, Hodges, Michael Alan 3 pet. ref’d) A defendant’s testimony alone is sufficient to raise a defensive issue requiring an instruction in the jury charge. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kenny v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.