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 2 courts 1981–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiayellow2 sentences2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim. 1994The Chapman Court then fashioned a harmless-constitutional-error rule: “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 (emphasis added). 5 Burden on the UPLC to Show No Harm In Chapman , the Court observed that “the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.” 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 . | 1 | 4 |
Ovalle v. Stategreen1 sentence2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Shelby v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Shelby v. State , 819 S.W.2d 544, 550 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981App.1974). [2] A re-examination of the harmless error doctrine, as applied to the Fifth Amendment and the "failure to testify," under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966), leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is the type of case for which the harmless constitutional error doctrine was created. [3] See, Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 , 100 S.Ct. 1358 , 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980), where the court was allowed to use a defendant's silence and non-cooperation as factors in assessment of punishment. 1981App.1974). [2] A re-examination of the harmless error doctrine, as applied to the Fifth Amendment and the "failure to testify," under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966), leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is the type of case for which the harmless constitutional error doctrine was created. [3] See, Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 , 100 S.Ct. 1358 , 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980), where the court was allowed to use a defendant's silence and non-cooperation as factors in assessment of punishment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.