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 4 courts 1885–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goad, Joshua Leegreen2 sentences2020“The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser-included offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser-included offense.” Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443, 448 (Tex. Crim. 2015“The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser-included 6 offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser- included offense.” Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 12 |
Dyson v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“When considering whether an instruction was warranted, we are concerned only with whether the evidence supports the defense of consent, not whether the evidence is believable.” Id. (citing Dyson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim. 2019Miller v. State, 312 S.W.3d 209, 212 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d); see Dyson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Hampton v. Stategreen2 sentences2012"The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser-included offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser-included offense." Goad, 2011 17 WL 5375119 , at *2 (citing Rice, 333 S.W.3d at 145 ). "'[T]here must be some evidence directly germane to the lesser-included offense for the finder of fact to consider before an instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted.'" Id. (quoting Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim. 2012"The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser-included offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser-included offense." Goad, 354 S.W.3d at 446 (citing Rice, 333 S.W.3d at 145 ). "'[T]here must be some evidence directly germane to the lesser-included offense for the finder of fact to consider before an instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted.'" Id. (quoting Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Williams v. State, 676 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex. Crim. 1989In Williams v. State, 676 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), the Court of Criminal Appeals said, if the evidence supports the instruction on the law of parties, the trial court may charge the jury on the law of parties even if there is no allegation in the indictment that defendant committed the crime with another person. | 3 | 3 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 288-92 (Tex. Crim.App.2009). 2013See Gardner v. State , 306 S.W.3d 274, 288-92 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Rice v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser- included offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser-included offense.” Id. 2012"The evidence supports an instruction on a lesser-included offense if it permits a rational jury to find the defendant guilty only of the lesser-included offense." Goad, 354 S.W.3d at 446 (citing Rice, 333 S.W.3d at 145 ). "'[T]here must be some evidence directly germane to the lesser-included offense for the finder of fact to consider before an instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted.'" Id. (quoting Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 5 |
Leonard, William Thomasgreen2 sentences2016See Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex.Crim.App.2012). “[T]he trial court has discretion to revoke community supervision when a preponderance of the evidence supports the violation of a condition of [the defendant’s] community supervision.” Id. 2016See Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex.Crim.App.2012). “[T]he trial court has discretion to revoke community supervision when a preponderance of the evidence supports the violation of a condition of [the defendant’s] community supervision.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). [2] We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant's right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. 1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). 2 We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant’s right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. | 1 | 2 |
Banda v. Stategreen1 sentence2021For this second prong, we review all the trial evidence to determine if more than a scintilla of evidence would entitle the appellant to the requested instruction, but we do not consider “[t]he credibility of the evidence and whether it conflicts with other evidence or is controverted.” Id. at 146‒47 (quoting Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 60 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Klein v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See 8 Klein v. State, 273 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Nguyen, Bich Ngoc v. Allstate Insurance C. and Lincoln Benefit Lite Companygreen1 sentence2020See id. at 777 & n.4. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Miller v. State, 312 S.W.3d 209, 212 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d); see Dyson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rousseau v. Stategreen1 sentence2015App. 2011) (emphasis added); see Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Rivera v. State, 990 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Marable v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Marable v. State, 85 S.W.3d 287, 287 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Quintana v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). [2] We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant's right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. 1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). 2 We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant’s right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. | 1 | 1 |
Banks v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). [2] We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant's right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. 1994Banks v. State, 656 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Young, 530 S.W.2d at 121-22 ; Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). 2 We find that the evidence does not support an instruction on appellant’s right to arm herself and seek a peaceful resolution. | 1 | 1 |
David H. Stuart and Richard A. Whitaker v. Richard G. Spademangreen1 sentence1993Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Israel Zapata v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Goad, 354 S.W.3d at 446 ; Zapata, 449 S.W.3d at 224 . 2015See Goad, 354 S.W.3d at 446 ; Zapata, 449 S.W.3d at 224 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Woodfox v. State
green
1 sentence2026“When considering whether an instruction was warranted, we are concerned only with whether the evidence supports the defense of consent, not whether the evidence is believable.” Id. (citing Dyson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Darius Houston-Randle v. State
green
1 sentence2018“The trial court has discretion to revoke community supervision when a preponderance of the evidence supports the violation of the conditions of defendant’s community supervision.” Randle v. State, 499 SW 3d 912 (Houston Dist. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Homer Ray Harrison v. State
green
1 sentence2015Harrison, 421 S.W.3d at 41-42 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence2013Hall, 158 S.W.3d at 473 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Zapp v. Michaelis
neutral
1 sentence1885The rule now obtaining with regard to verdicts and judgments is, that “when the evidence is so conflicting that the jury might well be justified in finding either way, the verdict or judgment will not be disturbed; but the appellate court will set aside the verdict or judgment when it is clearly wrong, as when it is without evidence, or manifestly against the weight of evidence. [Zapp v. Michaelis, 58 Tex. 270 .] Reversed and remanded. | 1 | 1885–1885 |
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.