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.
37 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Veteto v. Statered2 sentences2015See Veteto, 8 S.W.3d at 811 . 2013See Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). | 11 | 13 |
Roberson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017When evaluating the effectiveness of a curative instruction to disregard, we look to “the nature of the [improper comment]; the persistence of the prosecutor; the flagrancy of the violation; the particular instruction given; the weight of the incriminating evidence; and the harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence.” Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d). 2014We evaluate the effectiveness of a curative instruction to disregard by examining “ ‘the nature of the [improper comment]; the persistence of the prosecutor; the flagrancy of the violation; the particular instruction given; the weight of the incriminating evidence; and the harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence.’ ” Searcy v. State, 231 S.W.3d 539 , 549 n. 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref'd) (quoting Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. refd)). | 10 | 10 |
Fletcher v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Id. ; Fletcher v. State , 852 S.W.2d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, pet. ref’d). 2007See Veteto v. State , 8 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd); Flletcher v. State , 852 S.W.2d 271, 275 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd). | 7 | 7 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Johnson v. State, 83 S.W.3d 229, 232 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d). 2010Johnson v. State, 83 S.W.3d 229, 232 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. ref'd). | 6 | 9 |
Swallow v. Statered2 sentences2007Swallow v. State, 829 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex.App–Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). 2007Swallow v. State, 829 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex.App-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
Ladd v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Ann. art. 37.07.  Moreover, the only statement made by Sanders at the point of objection established he was a victim of a crime.  Counsel does not explain how this information could unfairly prejudice the jury against Sanders, rather than cause it to sympathize with him.             The State next asked Sanders if he “refused to cooperate and give testimony regarding the murder of Bruce Wetstone.”  Sanders replied, “No, ma’am.”  Sanders’ counsel objected and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the question and answer.  The trial court granted his request, b | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Ann. art. 37.07.  Moreover, the only statement made by Sanders at the point of objection established he was a victim of a crime.  Counsel does not explain how this information could unfairly prejudice the jury against Sanders, rather than cause it to sympathize with him.             The State next asked Sanders if he “refused to cooperate and give testimony regarding the murder of Bruce Wetstone.”  Sanders replied, “No, ma’am.”  Sanders’ counsel objected and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the question and answer.  The trial court granted his request, b | 1 | 1 |
Hardin v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Swallow v. State , 829 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Hardin v. State , 20 S.W.3d 84, 93 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Searcy v. State
green
2 sentences2014We evaluate the effectiveness of a curative instruction to disregard by examining “ ‘the nature of the [improper comment]; the persistence of the prosecutor; the flagrancy of the violation; the particular instruction given; the weight of the incriminating evidence; and the harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence.’ ” Searcy v. State, 231 S.W.3d 539 , 549 n. 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref'd) (quoting Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. refd)). 2014When evaluating the effectiveness of a curative instruction to disregard, we look to “the nature of the [improper comment]; the persistence of the prosecutor; the flagrancy of the violation; the particular instruction given; the weight of the incriminating evidence; and the harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence.” Searcy v. State, 231 S.W.3d 539 , 549 n.10 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (quoting Roberson v. State, 100 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d)). | 9 | 2003–2014 |
Lollis v. State
green
1 sentence2006Ann. art. 37.07.  Moreover, the only statement made by Sanders at the point of objection established he was a victim of a crime.  Counsel does not explain how this information could unfairly prejudice the jury against Sanders, rather than cause it to sympathize with him.             The State next asked Sanders if he “refused to cooperate and give testimony regarding the murder of Bruce Wetstone.”  Sanders replied, “No, maÂ’am.”  SandersÂ’ counsel objected and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the question and answer.  The trial court granted his request, b | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.