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.
34 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gallo v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“A court may consider several factors in determining whether the probative value of photographs is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, including, “but are not limited to: the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are black and white or color, whether they are close-up, and - 12 - 04-22-00243-CR whether the body depicted is naked or clothed.” Id. 2014THUESEN - 54 prejudicial.62 However, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.63 A court may consider several factors in determining whether the probative value of photographs is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, including, but not limited to: the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are black and white or color, whether they are close-up, and whether the body depicted is naked or clothed.64 The availability of other means of proof | 2 | 7 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Young, 283 S.W.3d at 875 . 2015Young, 283 S.W.3d at 874 . | 2 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In determining whether the probative value of a photograph is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, a court may consider several factors, including "the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black-and-white, whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is clothed or naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other circumstances unique to the individual case." Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 690 (Tex. Crim. 2014In determining whether the probative value of a photograph is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, a court may consider several factors, including “the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black-and-white, whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is clothed or naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other circumstances unique to the individual case.” Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 690 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Holley v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2012Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230 . 2012Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976); In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230 . | 2 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“A court may consider several factors in determining whether the probative value of photographs is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 196 (Tex. Crim. 2015Id. | 1 | 9 |
Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkinsgreen1 sentence2025Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Reese v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Hayes, 85 S.W.3d 815 ; Garcia, 630 S.W.3d at 269; see also Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Hayes v. State , 85 S.W.3d 809, 815 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 410 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), (and cases cited therein.) As we noted in Long, supra (quoting from Green, supra): A court may consider several factors in determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re UP
green
2 sentences2012Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976); In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230 . 2012Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976); In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d at 230 . | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Calloway v. State
green
2 sentences2008Calloway , 743 S.W.2d at 651 . 2008Callo-way, 743 S.W.2d at 651 . | 3 | 2008–2008 |
In Re ABP
green
1 sentence2016In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d at 98 (citing factors). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Burrow v. Arce
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Landrian v. State
green
1 sentence2014PENAL CODE ANN . § 19.03(a)(7). 67 See, e.g., Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532 , 537 n.27 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Long v. State
green
1 sentence1992Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 410 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), (and cases cited therein.) As we noted in Long, supra (quoting from Green, supra): A court may consider several factors in determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.