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 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010“Thus, if [a defendant’s] blood was taken in violation of any state or federal law or constitutional provision, not only the blood but also the results of the blood test would be properly suppressed.” Kelly , 166 S.W.3d at 910 (citing Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex. Crim. 2008Id. at 588 ; Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
St. Clair v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Clair v. State, 26 S.W.3d 89, 101-02 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd), the defendant claimed that hospital personnel obtained a blood sample from him in violation of his constitutional rights and that the results of the blood test should have been excluded from evidence. 2001Clair v. State, 26 S.W.3d 89, 101-02 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd), the defendant claimed that hospital personnel obtained a blood sample from him in violation of his constitutional rights and that the results of the blood test should have been excluded from evidence. | 4 | 4 |
State v. David Villarrealgreen2 sentences2014Villarreal, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 645 , 2014 WL 1257150, at *1, 11 . 2014Villarreal, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 645 , 2014 WL 1257150, at *1, 11 . | 2 | 2 |
Stoker v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Stoker, 788 S.W.2d at 10 ; Hall, 13 S.W.3d at 120 ; see also Benavidez, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2833 , at *8. 2009See Stoker , 788 S.W.2d at 10 ; Hall , 13 S.W.3d at 120 ; see also Benavidez , 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2833 , at *8. | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See id. at 588 ; Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). 2001Id. at 588 ; Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2008Id. at 588 ; Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex. Crim. 2005See id. at 588 ; Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). | 1 | 3 |
Gigliobianco v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Gigliobianco v. 7 State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Murray, Chad Williamgreen1 sentence2022See Murray, 457 S.W.3d at 449 . | 1 | 1 |
Crenshaw, Bradley Keltongreen1 sentence2021Appellant moved to suppress the results of the blood test, contending the manner in which the blood draw occurred constituted an assault, rendering the seizure of her blood 1 Trooper Fitzgerald was in the ER on an unrelated matter when Trooper Pace requested his assistance. 2 “The per se definition of intoxicated is ‘having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.’” Crenshaw v. State, 378 S.W.3d 460, 466 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Phillip Brandon Adkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Zalman v. State, No. 13-13-00471-CR, 2015 WL 512914 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 5, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that “appellant has not shown that the blood draw was unreasonable” despite presence of insects in room during blood draw); Adkins v. State, 418 S.W.3d 856, 861 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Appellant presented evidence at trial that the cotton ball used to clean the injection area was placed on a table before it was used. | 1 | 1 |
Lassiter v. City of Phila.green2 sentences2015Prayer For the reasons stated above Anthony James Sanchez asks this Court to sustain the trial court’s order suppressing the results of the blood analysis. 22 Respectfully submitted, /S/ Fernando Cortes Fernando Cortes SBN: 04844580 100 N. Santa Rosa, Suite 824 San Antonio, Texas 78207 (210) 381-0000 Fax: (210) 399-9444 Email: [email protected] /S/ Rocio Ramirez Rocío Ramírez SBN: 24037328 1603 Babcock, Suite 159 San Antonio, Texas 78229 (210) 785-0443 Fax: (210) 785-0453 Email: [email protected] 23 Certificate of Compliance and Service I hereby certify that this brief contains 6,065 2015Prayer For the reasons stated above Anthony James Sanchez asks this Court to sustain the trial court’s order suppressing the results of the blood analysis. 22 Respectfully submitted, /S/ Fernando Cortes Fernando Cortes SBN: 04844580 100 N. Santa Rosa, Suite 824 San Antonio, Texas 78207 (210) 381-0000 Fax: (210) 399-9444 Email: [email protected] /S/ Rocio Ramirez Rocío Ramírez SBN: 24037328 1603 Babcock, Suite 159 San Antonio, Texas 78229 (210) 785-0443 Fax: (210) 785-0453 Email: [email protected] 23 Certificate of Compliance and Service I hereby certify that this brief contains 6,065 | 1 | 1 |
Gutierrez v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680, 687 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Turner v. State, 734 S.W.2d 186, 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (“Because we have found the report of the blood test and its results inadmissible, it follows, and we hold that testimony regarding those results was likewise inadmissible.”). 1998See Turner v. State, 734 S.W.2d 186, 188 (Tex.App.Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) ("Because we have found the report of the blood test and its results inadmissible, it follows, and we hold that testimony regarding those results was likewise inadmissible."). | 1 | 1 |
Moone v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See Moone v. State, 728 S.W.2d 928, 931 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.). 1987See Moone v. State, 728 S.W.2d 928, 931 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Harper v. Stategreen1 sentence1987We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine the correctness of the holding of the Court of Appeals, particularly in light of Harper v. State, 686 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App.—Austin 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Hearn v. Stategreen2 sentences1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). . gee, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General’s Opinion No. C-766 (1966). 1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W. 2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). [49] See, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General's Opinion No. C-766 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 311 . 1961Brown v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. | 2 | 1961–2023 |
State v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2017In Hardy , the court of criminal appeals recognized that when the State itself ex tracts blood- from a DWI suspect and then conducts the subsequent blood alcohol analysis, two discrete “searches” have occurred for Fourth Amendment purposes. 963 S.W.2d at 523-24 . 2003The State relies on State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), for its argument that society’s interest in safeguarding the privacy of medical records is not strong enough to protect the results of blood tests taken by hospital personnel for medical purposes after a traffic accident. | 2 | 2003–2017 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences2009See Stoker, 788 S.W.2d at 10 ; Hall, 13 S.W.3d at 120 ; see also Benavidez, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2833 , at *8. 2009See Stoker , 788 S.W.2d at 10 ; Hall , 13 S.W.3d at 120 ; see also Benavidez , 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 2833 , at *8. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2021Relying primarily on State v. Martinez, 570 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Donald F. Huff v. State
green
2 sentences2015Accordingly, we hold the good faith exception is inapplicable. "intoxicated," which included "having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more." 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3401 , 2015 WL 1731236 , at The State further contends that even if the trial court erred in *17-*18. denying the motion to suppress and admitting the results of the blood test, Garcia was not harmed. 2015Accordingly, we hold the good faith exception is inapplicable. "intoxicated," which included "having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more." 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3401 , 2015 WL 1731236 , at The State further contends that even if the trial court erred in *17-*18. denying the motion to suppress and admitting the results of the blood test, Garcia was not harmed. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2013The trial court ruled that “all custodial interrogation subsequent to [Appellant] being placed under arrest, save and except for the DIC warnings and the acknowledgment of the blood tests and the approval of the blood tests from [Appellant], are suppressed.” The trial court stated that evidence that related to the blood test would not be suppressed, and the trial court admitted such evidence. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 In a single appellate issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to suppress evidence of the DIC statutory warnings, o | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2010“Thus, if [a defendant’s] blood was taken in violation of any state or federal law or constitutional provision, not only the blood but also the results of the blood test would be properly suppressed.” Kelly , 166 S.W.3d at 910 (citing Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Spebar v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1994While the results of the blood test may have substantial impact on the child's legal status, including issues relating to inheritance and right to financial support, the court provides for no hearing in advance of testing to determine whether the blood test itself is in the "best interest of the child." If a "best interest" hearing in advance of state action substantially affecting a developed relationship between an unmarried father and his children is constitutionally required, see Stanley, 405 U.S. at 658 , 92 S.Ct. at 1216 , then a marital family certainly should be entitled to a "best int 1994While the results of the blood test may have substantial impact on the child's legal status, including issues relating to inheritance and right to financial support, the court provides for no hearing in advance of testing to determine whether the blood test itself is in the "best interest of the child." If a "best interest" hearing in advance of state action substantially affecting a developed relationship between an unmarried father and his children is constitutionally required, see Stanley, 405 U.S. at 658 , 92 S.Ct. at 1216 , then a marital family certainly should be entitled to a "best int | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Burkhalter v. State
green
2 sentences1984Ground of error five is overruled.” In Burkhalter v. State, 642 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.App.—Houston (14th Dist.)—1982), the court wrote: As we have noted above, a lack of consent to the taking of a blood test presents no constitutional barrier to admitting the results of the blood test into evidence where a defendant was unconscious and not under arrest when a blood sample was taken, the Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that the exigency of rapidly dissipating alcohol justified the obtaining of a blood sample without the donor’s consent and the obtaining of a blood sample under those circumsta 1984Ground of error five is overruled." In Burkhalter v. State, 642 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.App.Houston (14th Dist.)1982), the court wrote: *127 "As we have noted above, a lack of consent to the taking of a blood test presents no constitutional barrier to admitting the results of the blood test into evidence where a defendant was unconscious and not under arrest when a blood sample was taken, the Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that the exigency of rapidly dissipating alcohol justified the obtaining of a blood sample without the donor's consent and the obtaining of a blood sample under those cir | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Barker v. State
green
2 sentences1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W. 2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). [49] See, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General's Opinion No. C-766 (1966). 1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W. 2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). [49] See, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General's Opinion No. C-766 (1966). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Trotter v. State
green
2 sentences1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). . gee, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General’s Opinion No. C-766 (1966). 1969Barker v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 277 , 334 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Cr.App.1960); Trotter v. State, 471 S.W. 2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (evidence of refusal to the blood test not error where no objection). [49] See, e. g., Hearn v. State, 411 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (dicta); Shilling v. State, supra. See also Attorney General's Opinion No. C-766 (1966). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Free v. State
neutral
2 sentences1961Appellant overlooks the recent holdings of this Court in Free v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 374 , 307 S.W.2d 808 ; Bowles v. State, Tex.Cr. 1961Appellant overlooks the recent holdings of this Court in Free v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 374 , 307 S.W.2d 808 ; Bowles v. State, Tex.Cr. | 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.