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.
47 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2020O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 435 ; Webb, 36 S.W.3d at 182–83. 2015Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164, 182 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2000, pet. ref.). | 8 | 27 |
O'NEAL v. McAninchgreen2 sentences2009The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.”101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.102 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we 100 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 88 (1963). 101 O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 434 (1995). 1 2009The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.”101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.102 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we 100 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 88 (1963). 101 O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 434 (1995). 1 | 4 | 26 |
Fahy v. Connecticutgreen1 sentence2009The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.”101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.102 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we 100 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 88 (1963). 101 O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 434 (1995). 1 | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2009App. P. 44.2. 5 Error resulting from improper jury argument is nonconstitutional in nature.17 Therefore, if the State’s argument was improper and not cured by the instruction to disregard, this court must conduct the harm analysis prescribed by Rule 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.18 Under this rule, an error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” 19 Substantial rights are affected when the error had a substantial and injurious influence on the jury’s verdict. 20 An error that has no influence, or only a slight influence, on the verdict should be deeme | 1 | 1 |
Enriquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Enriquez v. State , 56 S.W.3d 596, 602 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref’d) (citing O’Neal v. McAnich , 513 U.S. 432, 437-38 , 115 S. Ct. 992, 995 , 130 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Siverand v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Siverand v. State , 89 S.W.3d 216, 221 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (“[I]f the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences2009Id. 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” 101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. 102 *179 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we have a “grave doubt” that the ju 2009Id. 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” 101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. 102 *179 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we have a “grave doubt” that the ju | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.