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.
28 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Motilla v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 356 (observing that the State’s emphasis of the error at trial is a factor to be considered in harm analysis); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 356-57 (Tex. Crim.App.2002) (endorsing the State's emphasis of the error as a factor and stating that "our conclusion in Harris, that overwhelming evidence of guilt is a factor to be considered" applies in Rule 44.2(b) analyses); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (that the State did not emphasize the error supported our conclusion that the appellant's substantial rights were not affected under Rule 44.2(b)). | 6 | 11 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 356 (observing that the State’s emphasis of the error at trial is a factor to be considered in harm analysis); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 356-57 (Tex. Crim.App.2002) (endorsing the State's emphasis of the error as a factor and stating that "our conclusion in Harris, that overwhelming evidence of guilt is a factor to be considered" applies in Rule 44.2(b) analyses); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (that the State did not emphasize the error supported our conclusion that the appellant's substantial rights were not affected under Rule 44.2(b)). | 4 | 4 |
Snowden, Rion Phealgreen2 sentences2015Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. Crim. 2013Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Haley v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Id. at 518–19. 14 After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the harm from admitting the portions of Clipper’s testimony at issue here was minimal. 2015Id. at 518–19. | 1 | 6 |
Jourdan, Ricardogreen2 sentences2015Had it believed appellant rather than H.A., it would have acquitted him of all charges.”33 The emphasis on defense strategy is not limited to unanimity cases,34 and 30 428 S.W.3d 86, 99 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 2014). 31 Id. at 98 . 32 __ S.W.3d__, 2015 Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Arrington, Charlesgreen1 sentence2015App. 2014). 31 Id. at 98 . 32 __ S.W.3d__, 2015 Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Barnum v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Barnum v. State, State 7 S.W.3d 782, 794 (Tex.App.– Amarillo 1999, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Marsh v. Stategreen2 sentences2015State 115 S.W.3d 709 , 721 See Marsh v. State, (Tex.App.– Austin 2003, pet. ref’d) (“The prosecutor in closing ... stressed and overemphasized the erroneously admitted ... evidence.”). 2015See Marsh v. State, State 115 S.W.3d 709, 721 (Tex.App.– Austin 2003, pet. ref’d) (“The prosecutor in closing ... stressed and overemphasized the erroneously admitted ... evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Id. at 587-88 ; Williams v. State, 916 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Donald Eugene Colyergreen1 sentence1986See, United States v. Colyer, 571 F.2d 941, 942, 947 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 933 , 99 S.Ct. 325 , 58 L.Ed.2d 328 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Graser v. Goldberggreen1 sentence1986See, United States v. Colyer, 571 F.2d 941, 942, 947 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 933 , 99 S.Ct. 325 , 58 L.Ed.2d 328 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Campellone v. Adult Probation Department of Pima Countygreen1 sentence1986See, United States v. Colyer, 571 F.2d 941, 942, 947 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 933 , 99 S.Ct. 325 , 58 L.Ed.2d 328 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Colyer v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1986See, United States v. Colyer, 571 F.2d 941, 942, 947 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 933 , 99 S.Ct. 325 , 58 L.Ed.2d 328 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Langham v. State
green
1 sentence2025The emphasis of this analysis should not be on whether the jury verdict was supported by the evidence, but instead on “the likelihood that the constitutional error was actually a contributing factor in the jury’s deliberations in arriving at that verdict—whether, in other words, the error adversely affected the integrity of the process leading to the conviction.” Langham, 305 S.W.3d at 582 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence2007In Miller , the key issue was the complainant = s credibility, and so evidence bolstering the complainant = s credibility was prejudicial. 757 S.W.2d at 885 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Davis v. Washington
green
1 sentence2007Davis, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 n. 1. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 587-88 ; Williams v. State, 916 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.