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.
39 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1948–2025 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Hamilton v. State, 399 S.W.3d 673, 684 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. ref’d) (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. 2013Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). | 7 | 7 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 69 (Tex. Crim. 2015Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 69 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Antonio Parra Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Pyle v. State, No. 02-24-00155-CR, 2025 WL 728111 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 6, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Perez v. State, 562 S.W.3d 676, 691 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d); see also Patterson v. State, No. 02-23- 00012-CR, 2024 WL 1207306 , at *12 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 21, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (stating that error in the admission of evidence in violation of Rule 404 is generally not constitutional error). 2024Perez v. State, 562 S.W.3d 676, 691 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d); Byrd v. 30 State, No. 04-08-00313-CR, 2009 WL 1900412 , at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 1, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). | 3 | 4 |
Routier v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Qualls, 547 S.W.3d at 677 . “[W]hen a party complains of the admission of evidence in violation of the Rule,” an appellate court “look[s] at whether the complaining party objected and was harmed.” Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 . 2022Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 . | 2 | 4 |
Reese v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. Crim. 2018See, e.g., Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 2011); 12 Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592; Lara, 513 S.W.3d at 142 -43 (citing Villarreal, 470 S.W.3d at 176-77 ); see also Hernandez, 176 S.W.3d at 824-25 (error in the admission of evidence in violation of the notice requirement of rule 404(b) is non- constitutional error); Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. Crim. 2016App. 2005) (“Because no constitutional error is involved when evidence of uncharged misconduct is admitted without notice, we look to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b).”); Hernandez v. State, 176 S.W.3d 821, 824-25 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Solomon v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Solomon v. State , 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. 2008See Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 , 365 5 … The State also contends that the evidence is nevertheless admissible to show motive. | 2 | 2 |
Charles G. Villarreal v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 2011); 12 Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592; Lara, 513 S.W.3d at 142 -43 (citing Villarreal, 470 S.W.3d at 176-77 ); see also Hernandez, 176 S.W.3d at 824-25 (error in the admission of evidence in violation of the notice requirement of rule 404(b) is non- constitutional error); Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. Crim. 2018App. 2005) (noting error in the admission of evidence in violation of the notice requirement of rule 404(b) constitutes non-constitutional error), and Villarreal v. State , 470 S.W.3d 168 , 176-77 (Tex. App.-Austin 2015, no pet.) (concluding that any error in the admission of evidence in violation of article 38.37 's notice provision constitutes non-constitutional error) ). | 1 | 3 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Perez, 310 S.W.3d at 893 (defendant’s failure to show 16 either deficient performance or prejudice will defeat his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Nelson v. State, No. 05-18-00890-CR, 2020 WL 4034962 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 17, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (defendant failed to establish deficiency based on defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of evidence because defense counsel could have concluded that the evidence was admissible and that any objection on that basis would be fruitless); Kalluvilayil v. State, No. | 1 | 1 |
Sanford v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Sanford, 21 S.W.3d at 344–45; see also Olejnik v. State, No. 13-10-307-CR, 2011 WL 2475503 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 23, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Pierce, 2005 WL 1842759 , at *3. | 1 | 1 |
Clinton Ray Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2022App. 2003) (“An error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.”); see also, e.g., Sanders v. State, 422 S.W.3d 809 , 817–18 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) (harmless constitutional error from the admission of evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause given the unobjected-to admission of evidence establishing the same facts as the inadmissible evidence); United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377 , 346–47 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Stategreen1 sentence2021As such, the admission of evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause will result in a reversal if there is a reasonable possibility that, in the context of the entire trial, the error “moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion on a particular issue.” 17 Id.; see Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670 , 690–91 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen1 sentence2021App. 2007); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Stategreen1 sentence2019App. 2011); 12 Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592; Lara, 513 S.W.3d at 142 -43 (citing Villarreal, 470 S.W.3d at 176-77 ); see also Hernandez, 176 S.W.3d at 824-25 (error in the admission of evidence in violation of the notice requirement of rule 404(b) is non- constitutional error); Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Motilla v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
McDonald v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Villarreal v. State, 470 S.W.3d 168, 176-77 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (concluding that any error in the admission of evidence in violation of Article 38.37’s notice provision constitutes non-constitutional error); see McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 108 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Andre Nathaniel Hamilton v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Hamilton v. State, 399 S.W.3d 673, 684 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. ref’d) (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 419 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Langham v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 582 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Coleman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 708, 726 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, Coleman v. Texas, 549 U.S. 999 (2006); TEX . | 1 | 1 |
Brazzell v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Brazzell v. State, 481 S.W.2d 130,131 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); see also Tex.R.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reginald J. Qualls v. State
green
2 sentences2025Qualls, 547 S.W.3d at 677 . “[W]hen a party complains of the admission of evidence in violation of the Rule,” an appellate court “look[s] at whether the complaining party objected and was harmed.” Routier, 112 S.W.3d at 590 . 2025“A violation of the Rule . . . is not necessarily reversible error.” Qualls, 547 S.W.3d at 677 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Opio Moore
green
1 sentence2022App. 2003) (“An error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection.”); see also, e.g., Sanders v. State, 422 S.W.3d 809 , 817–18 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) (harmless constitutional error from the admission of evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause given the unobjected-to admission of evidence establishing the same facts as the inadmissible evidence); United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377 , 346–47 (D.C. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lara v. State
green
1 sentence2019App. 2011); 12 Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592; Lara, 513 S.W.3d at 142 -43 (citing Villarreal, 470 S.W.3d at 176-77 ); see also Hernandez, 176 S.W.3d at 824-25 (error in the admission of evidence in violation of the notice requirement of rule 404(b) is non- constitutional error); Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 118 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006We granted the State’s PDR which asked whether the court of appeals "erred by holding that the victim’s statement, which was admitted pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, violated appellant’s federal and state rights to confrontation.” We granted appellant's PDR which asked whether the court of appeals erred "in holding the admission of evidence in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) was harmless.” 3 . 2006We granted the State’s PDR which asked whether the court of appeals "erred by holding that the victim’s statement, which was admitted pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, violated appellant’s federal and state rights to confrontation.” We granted appellant's PDR which asked whether the court of appeals erred "in holding the admission of evidence in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) was harmless.” 3 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Webb v. State
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 240 ; see also Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 590 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hough v. Grapotte
neutral
2 sentences1948“The error, if any, was therefore harmless. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 1258, and authorities there cited.” Hough v. Grapotte, 127 Tex. 144, 146 , 90 S.W.2d 1090, 1092 . 1948“The error, if any, was therefore harmless. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 1258, and authorities there cited.” Hough v. Grapotte, 127 Tex. 144, 146 , 90 S.W.2d 1090, 1092 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.