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 2002–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saunders v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating non-accomplice evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” See Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 , quoting Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688, 692 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 2012Under the egregious-harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating non-accomplice evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Id. (quoting Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688, 692 (Tex. Crim. | 15 | 15 |
Herron v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (non-accomplice) evidence is ‘so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.’” Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at 598 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). 2021Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the non-accomplice evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 ; see also Vasquez v. State, No. 05-15-00588- CR, 2016 WL 912178 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 10, 2016 no. pet) (mem. op., not designated for publication). | 7 | 22 |
Casanova, Matthew Johngreen2 sentences2024Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). 2024Id. (citing Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Reasonable-Doubt Instruction In the jury charge in each case, the trial court included the following statement concerning the State’s burden of proof: “It is not required that the Prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all ‘reasonable doubt’ concerning the defendant’s guilt.” In his second point of error in appeal number 03-19-00278-CR and his fourth point of error in appeal number 03-19-00279-CR, appellant contends that the trial court erred in 8 submitting the phrase “It is not required that the Prosecution prove guilt beyond a | 1 | 1 |
Golden v. Stategreen1 sentence2011He said that the cocaine probably came from a “kilo brick,” and was probably sold in “eight balls” rather than single doses, making this a “medium” level operation. 48 Golden v. State, 851 S.W.2d 291, 294 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2015Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (nonaccomplice) evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Jones, 195 S.W.3d at 290 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. 2015Under the egregious harm standard, however, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (non-accomplice) evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Jones, 195 S.W.3d at 290 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ngo v. State
green
1 sentence2024Id. (citing Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ambrose, Cynthia
green
1 sentence2022“Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (non-accomplice) evidence is ‘so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.’” Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at 598 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence2013The omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally not egregiously harmful unless the corroborating (nonaccomplice) evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Hall, 161 S.W.3d at 150 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Scurlock v. United States
green
1 sentence2010The omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless under the egregious harm standard unless the corroborating non-accomplice evidence is “‘so unconvincing in 30 fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.’” Id. (quoting Saunders v. State, 817 S.W .2d 688, 692 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.