reasonable likelihood error in Texas

2026“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim.

2025“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim.

2016“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the [fact finder]’s deliberations, then the error is not harmless.” McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim.

2015As stated by this Court, “If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim.

2026If a party cannot show “a reasonable likelihood that the claim will soon ripen,” the claim is not ripe and “the case must be dismissed.” Robinson, 353 S.W.3d at 755 (citing Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 251 (Tex. 2001)).

2023If a party cannot demonstrate that its claim is ripe for review, or that there is a “a reasonable likelihood that the claim will soon ripen, the case must be dismissed.” Robinson, 353 S.W.3d at 755 (citing Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 251 (Tex. 2001)).

2026App. 2000); see Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tex. Crim.

2025App. 2000); see also Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tex. Crim.

2026If a party cannot show “a reasonable likelihood that the claim will soon ripen,” the claim is not ripe and “the case must be dismissed.” Robinson, 353 S.W.3d at 755 (citing Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 251 (Tex. 2001)).

2023If a party cannot demonstrate that its claim is ripe for review, or that there is a “a reasonable likelihood that the claim will soon ripen, the case must be dismissed.” Robinson, 353 S.W.3d at 755 (citing Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 251 (Tex. 2001)).

2025Id.; Jones, 119 S.W.3d at 777 .

2025“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, the error was not harmless.” Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777 (Tex. Crim.

2010Certainly, confessions have profound impact on the jury, so much so that we may justifiably doubt its ability to put them out of mind even if 108  Jones, 119 S.W .3d at 777 (citing McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55). 109  McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55. 110  Id. (citing Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 258–59, 108 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1988)). 111  Id. 112  Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1257 (1991)). 36 told to do so.” 113 Moreover, “[i]f the jury believes that a defendant has admitted the crime, it will doubtless be tempted to rest its decision on that evi

2010Certainly, confessions have profound impact on the jury, so much so that we may justifiably doubt its ability to put them out of mind even if 108  Jones, 119 S.W .3d at 777 (citing McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55). 109  McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55. 110  Id. (citing Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 258–59, 108 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1988)). 111  Id. 112  Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1257 (1991)). 36 told to do so.” 113 Moreover, “[i]f the jury believes that a defendant has admitted the crime, it will doubtless be tempted to rest its decision on that evi

2017“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. Crim.

2012“If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

2021“To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is . . . to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.” Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds by Estele v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 72 n.4 (1991).

2021Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972); Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim.

2021Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972); Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Bos v. Smith, No. 16-0341, 2018 WL 2749714 , at *10 (Tex. June 8, 2018) (stating “[a]mended pleadings supersede prior pleadings”); Waters v. Yockey, 144 Tex. 592, 594 , 192 S.W.2d 769, 769-70 (1946) (holding issuing new set of findings clearly shows trial court’s intent to substitute new findings for first set of filings). 5 Because Victoria did not establish an existing injury or a reasonable likelihood that her claim would soon ripen, the trial court erred by requiring Carlos to pay $50,000 into the registry of the court, and Victoria’s request for a cash bond “must be dismissed.” See Ro

2016App. 2001). “[T]he question for the reviewing court is not whether the jury verdict was supported by the evidence” but what is “the likelihood that the constitutional error was actually a contributing factor in the jury’s deliberations in arriving at that verdict.” Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Tex. 2012) (remand appropriate if pleadings and record neither demonstrate jurisdiction nor conclusively negate it); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 559 (Tex. 2002) (remanding case to trial court when pleadings failed to show jurisdiction but did not affirmatively demonstrate incurable jurisdictional defect); see also Robinson v. Parker, 353 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tex. 2011) (“a claim is not required to be ripe at the time of filing,” and suggesting that party need only “demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the claim will ripen soon”).

2015See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Tex. 2012) (remand appropriate if pleadings and record neither demonstrate jurisdiction nor conclusively negate it); County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 559 (Tex. 2002) (remanding case to trial court when pleadings failed to show jurisdiction but did not affirmatively demonstrate incurable jurisdictional defect); see also Robinson v. Parker, 353 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tex. 2011) (“a claim is not required to be ripe at the time of filing,” and suggesting that party need only “demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the claim will ripen soon”).

2015See United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 , 205–06 (3d Cir. 2007) (“every state, as well as a majority of federal district courts, now apply rules that are more protective of speech than the reasonable likelihood standard”).

2014See id.

2014A plea to the jurisdiction is properly granted if the plaintiff “cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the claim will soon ripen.” See Drexel Corp. v. Edgewood Dev., Ltd., 14-13-00353-CV, 2013 WL 5947007, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 7 2013, no pet.) (internal quotations omitted).

2010Certainly, confessions have profound impact on the jury, so much so that we may justifiably doubt its ability to put them out of mind even if 108  Jones, 119 S.W .3d at 777 (citing McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55). 109  McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55. 110  Id. (citing Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 258–59, 108 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1988)). 111  Id. 112  Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1257 (1991)). 36 told to do so.” 113 Moreover, “[i]f the jury believes that a defendant has admitted the crime, it will doubtless be tempted to rest its decision on that evi

2010Certainly, confessions have profound impact on the jury, so much so that we may justifiably doubt its ability to put them out of mind even if 108  Jones, 119 S.W .3d at 777 (citing McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55). 109  McCarthy, 65 S.W .3d at 55. 110  Id. (citing Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 258–59, 108 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1988)). 111  Id. 112  Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1257 (1991)). 36 told to do so.” 113 Moreover, “[i]f the jury believes that a defendant has admitted the crime, it will doubtless be tempted to rest its decision on that evi