39 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuliani v. Stategreen2 sentences2021When a defendant raises a claim of self-defense or defense of a third party to justify the use of force against another, “the defendant bears the burden to produce evidence supporting the defense, while the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the raised issues.” Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609 (citing Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. 2005Zuliani v. State , 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). | 4 | 9 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Jones v. State, No. 01-12-00604-CR, 2013 WL 5521958 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 3, 2013, no pet.)(mem. op. (not designated for publication) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ). “[W]hen a defendant raises the defense of entrapment at trial, he has the burden of producing evidence to establish every element of that defense.” Hernandez, 161 S.W.3d at 497 . 2013Id. “[W]hen a defendant raises the defense of entrapment at trial, he has the burden of producing evidence to establish every element of that defense.” Hernandez v. State, 161 S.W.3d 491, 497 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Zuniga v. Statered2 sentences2005Id. [[Image here]] Following Zuniga , we first look at the burden of proof of the parties at trial when, as in this case, the defendant raises the defense of mistake of fact. 2005See id. | 3 | 3 |
Eichel v. Ullahgreen2 sentences2010See Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff’s explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas, 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah, 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, no writ). 2010See Proulx v. Wells , 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff's explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas , 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah , 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Proulx v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2010See Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff’s explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas, 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah, 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, no writ). 2010See Proulx v. Wells , 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff's explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas , 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah , 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Webster v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2010See Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff’s explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas, 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah, 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, no writ). 2010See Proulx v. Wells , 235 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tex. 2007) (whether plaintiff's explanation demonstrates diligence was a fact question for the trier of fact); Webster v. Thomas , 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Eichel v. Ullah , 831 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020See Jones v. State, No. 01-12-00604-CR, 2013 WL 5521958 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 3, 2013, no pet.)(mem. op. (not designated for publication) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ). “[W]hen a defendant raises the defense of entrapment at trial, he has the burden of producing evidence to establish every element of that defense.” Hernandez, 161 S.W.3d at 497 . 1997Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . | 1 | 2 |
Igo v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645, 646 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ngo v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Johnston v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Johnston v. State, 145 S.W.3d 215, 222 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc.green1 sentence2015Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. 1990); Carter v. MacFadyen, 93 S.W.3d 307, 313 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. MacFadyengreen1 sentence2015Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. 1990); Carter v. MacFadyen, 93 S.W.3d 307, 313 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Randolph, Emanuell Glenngreen1 sentence2015See Randolph, 353 S.W.3d at 892 . 10 III. | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Stategreen1 sentence2014A. Standard of review When a defendant raises a claim of jury-charge error, we apply the procedure set forth in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Dafontegreen1 sentence2007In Phillips v. Dafonte, 187 S.W.3d 669, 675 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.), the court concluded the procedural vehicle through which a defendant raises a claim of immunity under section 101.106(f) is “inconsequential.” We decline to follow this reasoning. | 1 | 1 |
Proctor v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See id. | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Nix v. State, No. 793-00, slip op at 4, 2001 WL 717453, at *2 (Tex.Crim.App. | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Washington v. State , 943 S.W.2d 501, 506 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 1997, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkens v. Stategreen2 sentences1996This Court has held that by raising an insanity defense at guilt and offering psychiatric evidence in support thereof, the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights as to the State’s use of psychiatric evidence in rebuttal on that issue. 11 Wilkens v. State, 847 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1005 , 113 S.Ct. 1646 , 123 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993)(recognizing Buchanan as controlling). 1996This Court has held that by raising an insanity defense at guilt and offering psychiatric evidence in support thereof, the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights as to the State's use of psychiatric evidence in rebuttal on that issue. [11] Wilkens v. State, 847 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1005 , 113 S.Ct. 1646 , 123 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993)(recognizing Buchanan as controlling). | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marini v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saxton v. State
green
1 sentence2021App. 2003); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 , 913– 14 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Braughton, Christopher Ernest
green
1 sentence2021When a defendant raises a claim of self-defense or defense of a third party to justify the use of force against another, “the defendant bears the burden to produce evidence supporting the defense, while the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the raised issues.” Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609 (citing Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Adelman v. State
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 497 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State of Texas v. Thomas, Jeremy
green
2 sentences2015Thomas, 428 S.W.3d at 106 . 2015Thomas, 428 S.W.3d at 106 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Edlund v. Bounds
green
1 sentence2005Edlund , 842 S.W.2d at 724 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mayes v. State
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1997Jones, 589 S.W.2d at 421 . 1997Jones, 589 S.W.2d at 421 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fielder v. State
green
1 sentence1997As the Fort Worth Court Appeals pointed out in Osby v. State, 939 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.), the Legislature intended in Section 38.36 to reco-dify former Section 19.06, and to codify Fielder, 756 S.W.2d at 318-20 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Osby v. State
green
1 sentence1997As the Fort Worth Court Appeals pointed out in Osby v. State, 939 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.), the Legislature intended in Section 38.36 to reco-dify former Section 19.06, and to codify Fielder, 756 S.W.2d at 318-20 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Billy G. Byers
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 1111 . 1996Id. at 1111 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Woolum v. Bank One, Lexington, N. A.
green
2 sentences1996This Court has held that by raising an insanity defense at guilt and offering psychiatric evidence in support thereof, the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights as to the State’s use of psychiatric evidence in rebuttal on that issue. 11 Wilkens v. State, 847 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1005 , 113 S.Ct. 1646 , 123 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993)(recognizing Buchanan as controlling). 1996This Court has held that by raising an insanity defense at guilt and offering psychiatric evidence in support thereof, the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights as to the State's use of psychiatric evidence in rebuttal on that issue. [11] Wilkens v. State, 847 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1005 , 113 S.Ct. 1646 , 123 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993)(recognizing Buchanan as controlling). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| United Transportation Union v. Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| McCaw v. Pennsylvania green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Satterwhite v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.