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.
24 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2008App. 2001); see also Shaw v. State , 117 S.W.3d 883 , 888–89 (Tex. Crim. 2006Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005) (“[i]n all criminal trials the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.”)). 11 When a defendant makes a claim that he or she has been *337 denied the right to a speedy trial, the court reviewing that claim must use the four-part test from Barker : the court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, “the length of the delay, the State’s reason for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused harm to the accused.” Ex parte Martin, 33 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.App.-Austin 20 | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Martingreen2 sentences2008When a defendant makes a claim that he or she has been denied the right to a speedy trial, the court reviewing that claim must use the four-part test from Barker : the court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, "the length of the delay, the State's reason for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused harm to the accused." Ex parte Martin , 33 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted , 46 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. Crim. 2006Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005) (“[i]n all criminal trials the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.”)). 11 When a defendant makes a claim that he or she has been *337 denied the right to a speedy trial, the court reviewing that claim must use the four-part test from Barker : the court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, “the length of the delay, the State’s reason for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused harm to the accused.” Ex parte Martin, 33 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.App.-Austin 20 | 3 | 3 |
Harris v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224 , 91 S.Ct. 643, 645 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (noting that "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the statements made to the police were coerced or involuntary”). . 2005See, e.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224 , 91 S.Ct. 643, 645 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (noting that "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the statements made to the police were coerced or involuntary”). . | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Zuniga v. State , 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Zuniga v. Statered2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Zuniga v. State , 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Montgomery v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 1 | 8 |
Mickens v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2022Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 171 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Hill v. State, 827 S.W.2d 860, 863 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bezerra v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Even if evidence is admissible under article 38.37, “it is subject to exclusion if its probative value is substantially outweighed [by the danger of unfair prejudice] and if rule 403 is raised in the trial court.” Wells v. State, No. 02-16-00209-CR, 2017 WL 6759029 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2017, pet. [ref’d]); see Bezerra v. State, 485 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, pet. ref’d) (explaining that when a defendant makes a rule 403 objection to evidence that would otherwise be admissible under article 38.37, the trial court must balance the evidence’s probative value again | 1 | 1 |
AVCO Corp. v. Sikkeleegreen1 sentence2018Even if evidence is admissible under article 38.37, “it is subject to exclusion if its probative value is substantially outweighed [by the danger of unfair prejudice] and if rule 403 is raised in the trial court.” Wells v. State, No. 02-16-00209-CR, 2017 WL 6759029 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2017, pet. [ref’d]); see Bezerra v. State, 485 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, pet. ref’d) (explaining that when a defendant makes a rule 403 objection to evidence that would otherwise be admissible under article 38.37, the trial court must balance the evidence’s probative value again | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Sanders, 255 S.W.3d at 760 (“When a defendant makes a rule 403 objection....”); Walker, 4 S.W.3d at 103 (“Upon a proper objection .... ”); see also Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (“Once a Rule 403 objection as to prejudice versus probative value is invoked, the trial judge has no discretion as to whether or not to engage in the balancing test required by that rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Sanders, 255 S.W.3d at 760 (“When a defendant makes a rule 403 objection....”); Walker, 4 S.W.3d at 103 (“Upon a proper objection .... ”); see also Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (“Once a Rule 403 objection as to prejudice versus probative value is invoked, the trial judge has no discretion as to whether or not to engage in the balancing test required by that rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Sanders, 255 S.W.3d at 760 (“When a defendant makes a rule 403 objection....”); Walker, 4 S.W.3d at 103 (“Upon a proper objection .... ”); see also Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (“Once a Rule 403 objection as to prejudice versus probative value is invoked, the trial judge has no discretion as to whether or not to engage in the balancing test required by that rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Santellan v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Santellan v. State , 939 S.W.2d 155, 169 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 49 , 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1960). 1992Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 49 , 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 49 , 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1960). 1992Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 49 , 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex parte Martin
green
2 sentences2008When a defendant makes a claim that he or she has been denied the right to a speedy trial, the court reviewing that claim must use the four-part test from Barker : the court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, "the length of the delay, the State's reason for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused harm to the accused." Ex parte Martin , 33 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted , 46 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. Crim. 2006Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005) (“[i]n all criminal trials the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.”)). 11 When a defendant makes a claim that he or she has been *337 denied the right to a speedy trial, the court reviewing that claim must use the four-part test from Barker : the court must consider, under the totality of the circumstances, “the length of the delay, the State’s reason for delay, whether the delay was due to lack of diligence on the part of the State, and whether the delay caused harm to the accused.” Ex parte Martin, 33 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.App.-Austin 20 | 3 | 2006–2008 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2010Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 340 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gigliobianco v. State
green
1 sentence2009Id. 10 When a defendant makes a rule 403 objection, the trial court has a nondiscretionary obligation to weigh the probative value of the evidence against the unfair prejudice of its admission. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. (defendant’s offer of partial confession that he did not mean to kill decedent and testimony of ballistics expert to show gun shot higher than point of aim placed intent at issue and allowed admission of other robbery with gun). | 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.