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.
32 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 7 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 sentences2015“Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.). 2015“Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.). | 23 | 23 |
Keith Ladale Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“The trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, but it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Id. (citing Wilson v. State, 473 S.W.3d 889 , 901– 02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d)). 2019See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 860-62 (1975) (observing that right to effective assistance of counsel applies to closing argument); see also Wilson 11 v. State, 473 S.W.3d 889, 902 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d) (noting that “[a] trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, but it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense” and that “[p]rohibiting counsel from making a particular jury argument” can constitute denial of right to counsel). | 10 | 11 |
Herring v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2019See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 860-62 (1975) (observing that right to effective assistance of counsel applies to closing argument); see also Wilson 11 v. State, 473 S.W.3d 889, 902 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d) (noting that “[a] trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, but it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense” and that “[p]rohibiting counsel from making a particular jury argument” can constitute denial of right to counsel). 2013Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.); see Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 , 862– 64, 95 S. Ct. 2550 , 2555–56 (1975). | 3 | 3 |
Nzewi v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments, “it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Nzewi v. State, 359 S.W.3d 829, 841 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). –10– “[I]mproper denial of a jury argument may constitute a denial of the right to counsel.” McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tex. Crim. 2014Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments, “it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Nzewi v. State, 359 S.W.3d 829, 841 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). –10– “[I]mproper denial of a jury argument may constitute a denial of the right to counsel.” McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
McGee v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments, “it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Nzewi v. State, 359 S.W.3d 829, 841 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). –10– “[I]mproper denial of a jury argument may constitute a denial of the right to counsel.” McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tex. Crim. 2014Although the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing arguments, “it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Nzewi v. State, 359 S.W.3d 829, 841 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.)). –10– “[I]mproper denial of a jury argument may constitute a denial of the right to counsel.” McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 238 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Roy Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Vasquez v. State, 484 S.W.3d 526, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.). 2020Vasquez, 484 S.W.3d at 531 ; Lemos v. State, 130 S.W.3d 888, 892 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Renteriagreen1 sentence2024“Counsel is entitled to correctly argue the law, even if the law is not included in the jury charge.” Id. (citing State v. Renteria, 977 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2024“The trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument, but it may not prevent defense counsel from making a point essential to the defense.” Id. (citing Wilson v. State, 473 S.W.3d 889 , 901– 02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.