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 1995–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zamora, Jaime Arturogreen1 sentence2022An instruction regarding this rule “is required when the evidence raises the question of whether a witness is an accomplice under a party- conspirator theory.” Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504, 512 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See id; Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2007A [A] defensive instruction is not required when the issue in question is not a statutorily‑enumerated defense and merely serves to negate elements of the State = s case. @ Ortiz v. State , 93 S.W.3d 79, 92 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sparkman v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Just as the trial court must specifically charge the jury on all the essential elements of the offense set forth in the charging instrument, Sparkman v. State, 55 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.), an instruction regarding a defense must include all essential elements of the defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reinhart v. Young
neutral
2 sentences1995Because we hold that the trial court’s error, if any, was harmless, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 874 S.W.2d 773 . 1995Because we hold that the trial court's *472 error, if any, was harmless, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 874 S.W.2d 773 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.