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.
36 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lemos v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See generally Lemos v. State, 27 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that counsel's comment, "I withdraw my objection to that" waived any complaint. 2004See generally Lemos v. State, 27 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that counsel's comment, "I withdraw my objection to that" waived any complaint. | 6 | 6 |
Colburn v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Colburn, 966 S.W.2d at 520 (presuming jury followed trial court’s supplemental jury instruction not to consider parole in reaching verdict after jury sent note to trial court asking about possibility of parole for life sentence in capital murder trial). 2007Colburn , 966 S.W.2d at 520 (presuming jury followed trial court’s supplemental jury instruction not to consider parole in reaching verdict after jury sent note to trial court asking about possibility of parole for life sentence in capital murder trial). | 3 | 3 |
Adanandus v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Adanandus v. State , 866 S.W.2d 210, 224 (Tex. Crim. 2002See Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 224 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Easley, Damian Demitriusgreen2 sentences2015See Easley v. State, 424 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Easley v. State, 424 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 4 |
Sandrella Lakay Hill A/K/A Sandrella Spraglin v. State of Texasgreen2 sentences2018Examining the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Easley , the court determined the proper analysis for whether the error is constitutional is "not to apply a per se rule to a voir dire error but to determine if the error is substantial enough to [be constitutional error] warrant[ing] a Rule 44.2(a) analysis...." Id. , at 138, quoting Hill , 426 S.W.3d at 875 . 2016Therefore, under Easley , “the proper analysis is not to apply a per se rule to a voir dire error but to determine if the error is substantial enough to [be constitutional error] warranting] a Rule 44.2(a) analysis; if not, then the error is reviewed under Rule 44.2(b).” Hill, 426 S.W.3d at 875 . | 1 | 3 |
Lane v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gaytan v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Gaytan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 218, 228 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. ref’d); Hepner, 966 S.W.2d at 160 . 7 The report interpreted one mixed profile as “a mixture of three individuals, at least one of which is male.” Although the results were equivocal, Sara could not be excluded as a contributor to the profile. 19 During the voir dire hearing, the trial judge warned that “we’re getting lost in the weeds” and explained: I’m concerned about having a jury understand how—I mean, it took me, who actually knows a tiny bit, teeny tiny bit, about DNA 30 minutes talking one-on-one with this expert to | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Further, Trevino does not claim that denial of the voir dire hearing hindered his defense counsel in his cross-examination.”); see also Brown v. State, 974 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d) (noting if defense counsel already knew the basis of the expert’s opinion testimony there was no need for a Rule 705(b) hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Barajas v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Barajas, 93 S.W.3d 36 , 38–39 (“The main reason for [the trial court’s broad discretion] is that voir dire could go on forever without reasonable limits.”). | 1 | 1 |
Devoe, Paul Gilbertgreen1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Campbell, 667 S.W.2d at 222 (trial court prohibited questioning venire-members on their theories of punishment); Hill, 426 S.W.3d at 874-76 (trial court prohibited asking some veniremembers individually whether they could consider full range of punishment). 2015See Campbell, 667 S.W.2d at 222 (trial court prohibited questioning veniremembers on their theories of punishment); Hill, 426 S.W.3d at 874–76 (trial court prohibited asking some veniremembers individually whether they could consider full range of punishment). 5 merely excluded the questions on the slide because of their form. | 1 | 1 |
| Yazdchi v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Campbell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Broxton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. State
green
2 sentences2013The Green Court established that, to preserve error and establish harm in cases such as this, appellant must: (1) object to the excusal of the juror; (2) at the conclusion of the voir dire claim that he is to be tried by a jury to which he has a legitimate objection; (3) specifically identify the juror or jurors that he is complaining about; and (4) exhaust all of his peremptory challenges and request additional peremptory challenges. 764 S.W.2d at 247 . 1992Id. | 3 | 1992–2013 |
McCarthy v. State
green
2 sentences2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . 2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Wesbrook v. State
green
2 sentences2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . 2006The standard of review for constitutional error under Rule 44.2(a) is set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 -20 and McCarthy, 65 S.W.3d at 52 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Hepner v. State
green
1 sentence2025See Gaytan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 218, 228 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. ref’d); Hepner, 966 S.W.2d at 160 . 7 The report interpreted one mixed profile as “a mixture of three individuals, at least one of which is male.” Although the results were equivocal, Sara could not be excluded as a contributor to the profile. 19 During the voir dire hearing, the trial judge warned that “we’re getting lost in the weeds” and explained: I’m concerned about having a jury understand how—I mean, it took me, who actually knows a tiny bit, teeny tiny bit, about DNA 30 minutes talking one-on-one with this expert to | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Joshua Jacobs v. State
green
1 sentence2018Examining the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Easley , the court determined the proper analysis for whether the error is constitutional is "not to apply a per se rule to a voir dire error but to determine if the error is substantial enough to [be constitutional error] warrant[ing] a Rule 44.2(a) analysis...." Id. , at 138, quoting Hill , 426 S.W.3d at 875 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Adams green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Carson v. Charter Medical green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Berry v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bivins v. Indiana
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Alba v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Huffman v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Comeaux, Farrain Joseph green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Estrada v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Soliz, Mark Anthony
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Beltran v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bell v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chambers v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Feldman v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gardner v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Gonzales v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Freeman v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Druery v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Fuller v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Goss v. State
green
1 sentence2015Alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the voir dire hearing to the expert’s qualifications and the basis of her findings. ................................................................ 61 Relevant Facts ....................................................................................................................... 61 Appellant Failed to Preserve Any Alleged Error for Review ............................................... 62 The Trial Judge Afforded Appellant a Proper Rule 705(b) Hearing .................................... 63 PRAYER .................. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Barley v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Clark v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Ransom v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Witherspoon v. Illinois green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Brandley v. State green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.