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.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id. 7 court to deny Cantu’s request to supplement the extraneous offense evidence instruction in the jury charge. | 1 | 1 |
Whitaker v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Accordingly, even if the admission of the extraneous offense evidence was error, we would then have to determine whether the error had “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Whitaker v. State, 286 S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), quoting King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); see TEX. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Accordingly, even if the admission of the extraneous offense evidence was error, we would then have to determine whether the error had “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Whitaker v. State, 286 S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), quoting King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); see TEX. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2008App. 1998) (holding that victim ’s testim ony— that victim had previously threatened defendant— was adm issible because it shed light on the victim ’s state of m ind on the night of the m urder); see also United States v. W illiams, 343 F.3d 423, 434-36 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that adm ission of victim ’s knowledge about defendant’s extraneous offenses was relevant because it showed victim ’s state of m ind and helped the governm ent dispel defendant’s defense). 4 Having determined that the trial court correctly admitted the extraneous offense evidence under rule 404(b), we next consider whet | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. State
green
1 sentence2023The opinion of the court of criminal appeals in Wheeler v. State is instructive. 67 S.W.3d at 886–89. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bass v. State
green
1 sentence2009Rule 404(b) “[A] defense opening statement…opens the door to the admission of extraneous- offense evidence…to rebut the defensive theory presented in the defense opening statement.” Bass, 270 S.W.3d at 563 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |