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.
40 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Legate v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Guevara, 297 S.W.3d at 361 (citing Legate v. State, 52 S.W.3d 797, 803 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2001, pet. ref’d)). 2024Legate v. State, 52 S.W.3d 797, 803 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. ref’d). | 10 | 10 |
Roy v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Roy v. State , 608 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. Crim. 2004Roy v. State , 608 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 7 |
Meador v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Meador v. State, 812 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“When two or more people take part in the commission of a felony, evidence of a conspiracy is admissible even though the substantive crime of conspiracy is not charged.”). 2018Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349, 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d); see also Meador v. State, 812 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 7 |
Deeb v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349, 363 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). 1997See Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cer t. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992). | 3 | 3 |
Bourjaily v. United Statesred2 sentences2007See id.; Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (“We think that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is firmly enough rooted in our jurisprudence that, under this Court’s holding in Roberts, a court need not independently inquire into the reliability of such statements.”); Wiggins, 152 S.W.3d at 660. 2007See id.; Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (“We think that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is firmly enough rooted in our jurisprudence that, under this Court’s holding in Roberts, a court need not independently inquire into the reliability of such statements.”); Wiggins, 152 S.W.3d at 660. | 2 | 6 |
Crum v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349, 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d); see also Meador v. State, 812 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. Crim. 2001Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349, 363 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Howard v. State, 962 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd); Vasquez v. State, 902 S.W.2d 627, n. 3 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1995), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Murdock v. State, 840 S.W.2d 558, 562 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref'd). 2001Howard v. State , 962 S.W.2d. 119, 123 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Vasquez v. State , 902 S.W.2d 627, n.3 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1995, reversed and remanded on other grounds , 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Howard v. State, 962 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd); Vasquez v. State, 902 S.W.2d 627, n. 3 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1995), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Murdock v. State, 840 S.W.2d 558, 562 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref'd). 2001Howard v. State , 962 S.W.2d. 119, 123 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Vasquez v. State , 902 S.W.2d 627, n.3 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1995, reversed and remanded on other grounds , 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Rodriquez v. Stategreen2 sentences1978Moreover, it is well established that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is “a rule of evidence applicable to the prosecution of any offense in which co-conspirators participate.” Rodriquez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). 1978Moreover, it is well established that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is "a rule of evidence applicable to the prosecution of any offense in which co-conspirators participate." Rodriquez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Byrd v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Byrd, 187 S.W.3d at 443–44 (explaining that co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule is “very narrow”). 2019See Byrd v. State, 187 S.W.3d 436 , 440–44 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Boles v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Boles v. State, 598 S.W.2d 274 , 279–81 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wiggins v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See id.; Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (“We think that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is firmly enough rooted in our jurisprudence that, under this Court’s holding in Roberts, a court need not independently inquire into the reliability of such statements.”); Wiggins, 152 S.W.3d at 660. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2003App. 1993) (an undercover police officer’s statements in a tape-recorded conversation are admissible as a statement of a co-conspirator ); Davis v. State , 791 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (a co-conspirator’s taped conversation with undercover officer is admissible); Eminger v. State , 718 S.W.2d 406, 407-08 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1986, no pet.) (a confidential informant’s statements in a tape-recorded conversation are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
Eminger v. Stategreen1 sentence2003App. 1993) (an undercover police officer’s statements in a tape-recorded conversation are admissible as a statement of a co-conspirator ); Davis v. State , 791 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (a co-conspirator’s taped conversation with undercover officer is admissible); Eminger v. State , 718 S.W.2d 406, 407-08 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1986, no pet.) (a confidential informant’s statements in a tape-recorded conversation are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
Murdoch v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Howard v. State, 962 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd); Vasquez v. State, 902 S.W.2d 627, n. 3 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1995), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Murdock v. State, 840 S.W.2d 558, 562 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
McDuff v. Stategreen1 sentence1999This is especially true "with regard to the admission of evidence.” McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 844 , 118 S.Ct. 125 , 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). .Appellant complains on appeal that the trial court did not conduct a hearing to determine if there was a sufficient indicia of reliability attached to Trevino’s testimony regarding Chris's statements. | 1 | 1 |
Romero v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Even if there was some confusion about whether the trial court admitted this testimony under either the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule or under the provision excluding declarations against interest from the hearsay rule, this Court notes when a trial court's decision "is correct on any theoiy of law applicable to the case, it will be sustained.” See Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 , n. 6 at 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Deeb v. Texasgreen2 sentences1997See Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cer t. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992). 1997See Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cer t. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Bass v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Tex. R.CRIM.Evid. 801(e)(2)(E); Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Bass v. State, 830 S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tex.Crim.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Lape v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Lape v. State, 893 S.W.2d 949, 954-55 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd.). 1996Lape v. State, 893 S.W.2d 949, 954-55 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd.). | 1 | 1 |
| Sherwood v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Figueroa v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 801(e)(2)(E) (Pamph.1991); Ward, 657 S.W.2d at 136 ; see also Figueroa v. State, 740 S.W.2d 537, 539 (Tex.App. 1987, no pet); Sherwood v. State, 732 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex.App. 1987, no pet.); Bowman v. State, 704 S.W.2d 463 , 465 (Tex.App.1986, pet. ref'd), disapproved in part on other grounds, 730 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 1992Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 801(e)(2)(E) (Pamph.1991); Ward, 657 S.W.2d at 136 ; see also Figueroa v. State, 740 S.W.2d 537, 539 (Tex.App.1987, no pet.); Sherwood v. State, 732 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex.App.1987, no pet.); Bowman v. State, 704 S.W.2d 463 , 465 (Tex.App.1986, pet. ref’d), disapproved in part on other grounds, 730 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Delgado v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mutscher v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Montemayor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. State
green
2 sentences2001Howard v. State, 962 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refd); Vasquez v. State, 902 S.W.2d 627, n. 3 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1995), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Murdock v. State, 840 S.W.2d 558, 562 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref'd). 2001Howard v. State , 962 S.W.2d. 119, 123 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Vasquez v. State , 902 S.W.2d 627, n.3 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1995, reversed and remanded on other grounds , 919 S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Moody v. State
green
2 sentences1995The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). 1994The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Rushton v. State
green
2 sentences1995The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). 1994The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Murphy v. State
green
2 sentences1995The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). 1994The State additionally argues the evidence could not be used to attack the credibility of B. under: Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel op.] 1979); and Rushton v. State, 695 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Ward v. State
green
2 sentences1992Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 801(e)(2)(E) (Pamph.1991); Ward, 657 S.W.2d at 136 ; see also Figueroa v. State, 740 S.W.2d 537, 539 (Tex.App. 1987, no pet); Sherwood v. State, 732 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex.App. 1987, no pet.); Bowman v. State, 704 S.W.2d 463 , 465 (Tex.App.1986, pet. ref'd), disapproved in part on other grounds, 730 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 1992Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 801(e)(2)(E) (Pamph.1991); Ward, 657 S.W.2d at 136 ; see also Figueroa v. State, 740 S.W.2d 537, 539 (Tex.App.1987, no pet.); Sherwood v. State, 732 S.W.2d 787, 796 (Tex.App.1987, no pet.); Bowman v. State, 704 S.W.2d 463 , 465 (Tex.App.1986, pet. ref’d), disapproved in part on other grounds, 730 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). | 2 | 1988–1992 |
Guevara v. State
green
1 sentence2026Guevara, 297 S.W.3d at 361 (citing Legate v. State, 52 S.W.3d 797, 803 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2001, pet. ref’d)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Howard v. State
red
1 sentence1999Even if there was some confusion about whether the trial court admitted this testimony under either the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule or under the provision excluding declarations against interest from the hearsay rule, this Court notes when a trial court's decision "is correct on any theoiy of law applicable to the case, it will be sustained.” See Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 , n. 6 at 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McDuff v. Texas
green
2 sentences1999This is especially true "with regard to the admission of evidence.” McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 844 , 118 S.Ct. 125 , 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). .Appellant complains on appeal that the trial court did not conduct a hearing to determine if there was a sufficient indicia of reliability attached to Trevino’s testimony regarding Chris's statements. 1999This is especially true "with regard to the admission of evidence.” McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 844 , 118 S.Ct. 125 , 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). .Appellant complains on appeal that the trial court did not conduct a hearing to determine if there was a sufficient indicia of reliability attached to Trevino’s testimony regarding Chris's statements. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Adams v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
green
1 sentence1999This is especially true "with regard to the admission of evidence.” McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 844 , 118 S.Ct. 125 , 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). .Appellant complains on appeal that the trial court did not conduct a hearing to determine if there was a sufficient indicia of reliability attached to Trevino’s testimony regarding Chris's statements. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Bowman v. State neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.