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 3 courts 1961–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Durrett v. Stategreen2 sentences2022To establish the facts necessary to support the trial court’s decision to admit the results of a blood test into evidence, “a proper chain of custody of the blood sample that was drawn from the accused and later tested must be established.” Penley v. State, 2 S.W.3d 534, 537 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d); Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). 2015To establish the facts necessary to support the trial court’s decision to admit the results of a blood test into evidence, “a proper chain of custody of the blood sample that was drawn from the accused and later tested must be established.” Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). | 12 | 12 |
Moone v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Moone v. State, 728 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.)). 2009Moone v. State , 728 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.). | 6 | 6 |
Avila v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Dossett v. State, 216 S.W.3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); Avila v. State, 18 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). 2009Durrett v. State , 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Avila v. State , 18 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (proper chain of custody must be established to admit the results of scientific testing). | 6 | 6 |
Penley v. Stategreen2 sentences2022To establish the facts necessary to support the trial court’s decision to admit the results of a blood test into evidence, “a proper chain of custody of the blood sample that was drawn from the accused and later tested must be established.” Penley v. State, 2 S.W.3d 534, 537 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d); Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). 2019See Islas v. State, No. 08-12-00157-CR, 2014 WL 2006713 , at *8 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 14, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (citing 4 Penley v. State, 2 S.W.3d 534, 537 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref’d)); Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Stoker v. Statered2 sentences2023See Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. 2022In the absence of any evidence of tampering or alteration, “[p]roof of the beginning and end of a chain of custody will support the admission of the evidence[.]” Dossett v. State, 216 S.W.3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Dossett v. Stategreen2 sentences2022In the absence of any evidence of tampering or alteration, “[p]roof of the beginning and end of a chain of custody will support the admission of the evidence[.]” Dossett v. State, 216 S.W.3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. 2015In the absence of any evidence of tampering or alteration, “[p]roof of the beginning and end of a chain of custody will support the admission of the evidence[.]” Dossett v. State, 216 S.W.3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Comeauxgreen2 sentences1991App. 1991), this Court noted that the decision to suppress the results of a blood test is addressed to the trial court's discretion. 786 S.W.2d at 481 . 1991App.1991), this Court noted that the decision to suppress the results of a blood test is addressed to the trial court's discretion. 786 S.W.2d at 481 . | 2 | 4 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Brown v. State, 156 Tex.Crim.R. 144, 240 S.W.2d 310, 311 (1951); Moone v. State, 728 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.); Lynch v. State, 687 S.W.2d 76, 77-78 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1985, pet. ref'd). 1987Brown v. State, 156 Tex.Crim.R. 144, 240 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1951); Lynch v. State, 687 S.W.2d 76, 77-78 (Tex.App. —Amarillo 1985, pet. ref’d). | 2 | 2 |
Lynch v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Brown v. State, 156 Tex.Crim.R. 144, 240 S.W.2d 310, 311 (1951); Moone v. State, 728 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.); Lynch v. State, 687 S.W.2d 76, 77-78 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1985, pet. ref'd). 1987Brown v. State, 156 Tex.Crim.R. 144, 240 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1951); Lynch v. State, 687 S.W.2d 76, 77-78 (Tex.App. —Amarillo 1985, pet. ref’d). | 2 | 2 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2016Appellant contends that, under two United State Supreme Court cases—Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 , 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2715-16 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11 , 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2532 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)—the trial court’s allowing Isreal to testify violated appellant’s' rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution; In Bullcoming, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the State introduced a report containing the results of a blood test determining the defendant’s 2016Appellant contends that, under two United State Supreme Court cases—Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 , 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2715-16 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11 , 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2532 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)—the trial court’s allowing Isreal to testify violated appellant’s' rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution; In Bullcoming, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the State introduced a report containing the results of a blood test determining the defendant’s | 1 | 2 |
Hailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Kelly relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert, denied, 538 U.S. 1060 , 123 S.Ct. 2218 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1111 (2003) (holding that the results of a blood test taken by a hospital employee without the defendant's permission should have been suppressed under article 38.23 because taking the specimen was an assault). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Coulter v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Id. at 883. | 1 | 1 |
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Degolladogreen1 sentence1999See National Farmers Union Prop. & Casualty Co. v. Degollado , 844 S.W.2d 892, 897 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Comeaux
green
2 sentences1995State v. Comeaux , 786 S.W.2d 480, 481-82 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990), aff'd , 818 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. 1995State v. Comeaux, 786 S.W.2d 480, 481-82 (Tex.App. — Austin 1990), aff'd, 818 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Gregory Everett Mitchell v. State
green
1 sentence2019Mitchell, 419 S.W.3d at 662 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2016Appellant contends that, under two United State Supreme Court cases—Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 , 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2715-16 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11 , 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2532 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)—the trial court’s allowing Isreal to testify violated appellant’s' rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution; In Bullcoming, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the State introduced a report containing the results of a blood test determining the defendant’s 2016Appellant contends that, under two United State Supreme Court cases—Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 , 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2715-16 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11 , 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2532 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)—the trial court’s allowing Isreal to testify violated appellant’s' rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution; In Bullcoming, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the State introduced a report containing the results of a blood test determining the defendant’s | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dickerson v. State
green
1 sentence2015The first case decided after Hardy was Dickerson v. State, 965 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d, improvidently granted).8 After rejecting the identical constitutional claim raised in Hardy, the court also rejected claims of defects in the grand jury subpoena process. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hailey v. State
green
1 sentence2005Kelly relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert, denied, 538 U.S. 1060 , 123 S.Ct. 2218 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1111 (2003) (holding that the results of a blood test taken by a hospital employee without the defendant's permission should have been suppressed under article 38.23 because taking the specimen was an assault). 5 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hailey v. Texas
green
2 sentences2005Kelly relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert, denied, 538 U.S. 1060 , 123 S.Ct. 2218 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1111 (2003) (holding that the results of a blood test taken by a hospital employee without the defendant's permission should have been suppressed under article 38.23 because taking the specimen was an assault). 5 . 2005Kelly relies on Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert, denied, 538 U.S. 1060 , 123 S.Ct. 2218 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1111 (2003) (holding that the results of a blood test taken by a hospital employee without the defendant's permission should have been suppressed under article 38.23 because taking the specimen was an assault). 5 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Thurman v. State
green
1 sentence1997In Thurman , and in upholding the use of a grand jury subpoena to obtain the results of a blood test, the court opined that “the State could have obtained the same evidence before or during trial by use of an ordinary *842 subpoena duces tecum, rather than a grand jury subpoena.” Id. at 100 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ferguson v. State
green
1 sentence1982Without citing us to the record, appellant asserts that his “objection to the admissibility of blood test comparisons was overruled.” For its part, the State concedes the admission of the blood test results in this cause constituted error since neither appellant’s consent, nor a warrant was obtained authorizing the seizure of appellant’s blood, citing Ferguson v. State, 573 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); the State contends, however, that admission of appellant’s blood type into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Slagle v. State
green
1 sentence1982On considering the objection to the admissibility of chemical tests for drunkenness, it is said in 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE § 1430 (1980): “And it is now clearly established by the Texas decisions that objections based upon alleged inaccuracy or unreliability of the tests go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.” Although considering the results of a breath test and not the results of a blood test, the court in Slagle v. State, 570 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), held that evidence concerning variables involved in administration of breathalyzer examination went to the w | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Breithaupt v. Abram
green
2 sentences1969Cf. Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957), where under similar circumstances it was held that the conviction based on the results of a blood test made while the accused was unconscious did not deprive him of his liberty without due process. . 1969Cf. Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957), where under similar circumstances it was held that the conviction based on the results of a blood test made while the accused was unconscious did not deprive him of his liberty without due process. . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Marx v. State
neutral
1 sentence1961Marx v. State, 161.Tex.Cr.R. 401, 277 S.W.2d 914 ." In answer to your question three it is our opinion based upon the foregoing cited cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that blood tests and the testimony by any person who can qualify as an expert may be allowed into evidence as to the results of a blood test taken from a defendant in a driving while intoxicated case. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.