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.
23 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. State of Texasgreen2 sentences2008Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 126 (Tex. App.–Austin 1998, no pet.). 85 We recently reiterated this duty in Pickens v. State, 165 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. 2008Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 126 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.). 85 . | 5 | 5 |
Huizar v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484 . 2005Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484 (“[art.37.07, § 3(a)’s] requirement that the jury be satisfied of the defendant’s culpability in the extraneous offenses and bad acts is thus ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 352 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (“a statutorily defined word or phrase must be included in the charge as part of *721 the ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Goodman v. State, 8 S.W.3d 362, 364 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (“When a witness who is an accomplice as a matter of law gives testimony to which article 38.14 applies, the statutorily required instruction is ‘ | 3 | 3 |
Sandone v. Miller-Sandonegreen2 sentences2007See id .; see also Sandone , 116 S.W.3d at 208 . 2007See id.; see also Sandone, 116 S.W.3d at 208 . | 2 | 2 |
Goodman v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484 (“[art.37.07, § 3(a)’s] requirement that the jury be satisfied of the defendant’s culpability in the extraneous offenses and bad acts is thus ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 352 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (“a statutorily defined word or phrase must be included in the charge as part of *721 the ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Goodman v. State, 8 S.W.3d 362, 364 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (“When a witness who is an accomplice as a matter of law gives testimony to which article 38.14 applies, the statutorily required instruction is ‘ 2005Goodman v. State , 8 S.W.3d 362, 364 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Luquis v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 , 362–68 (Tex. Crim. 2016Id. at 364-68 . | 1 | 4 |
Villarreal v. Stategreen2 sentences2014As in Villarreal, the absence of the instruction may not, alone, have amounted to egregious harm; but “when it became apparent the jury was concerned with application of the parole law,” as evidenced by the jury’s note inquiring how soon Reece would be eligible for parole if assessed a twenty-year sentence, “the trial court was required to give the mandatory parole instruction pursuant to Article 37.07.” Villarreal, 205 S.W.3d at 107 . 2014See Villarreal, 205 S.W.3d at 110 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Stansberygreen1 sentence2013Because § 3(c) expressly exempts confessions otherwise admissible under its terms from the statutorily required warnings, we cannot conclude that Article 38.22, supra, has been violated.‖ Id. (emphasis in original); see also Ex parte Stansbery, 702 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 258 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Oursbourn v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See id. at 180 n.84 (noting that a statutorily required instruction regarding accomplice-witness testimony is “law applicable to the case”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re MNgreen1 sentence2010See In re M.N. , 262 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tex. 2008) (holding trial court may extend time for filing a statement of points under Section 263.405 on showing of good cause). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Kimbroughgreen1 sentence2007Id. at 329. 14 the issue of awarding rule 13 sanctions when a party has brought a statutorily barred claim. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Sometimes, the common law' serves as a basis for the “law applicable to the case.” See Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (“Under our caselaw, this charge 2 instructed the jury on the law applicable to the case.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Compton
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 1115 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Druery v. State
green
1 sentence2011If the evidence conflicts as to whether a witness was an accomplice, the jury should determine the witness’s status under an instruction defining an “accomplice.” Druery , 225 S.W.3d at 498–99. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mills v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2009The foreman signed the answer that stated: “We, the jury, unanimously find and determine that the answer to this Special Issue is ‘No.’” Because no juror believed there was a circumstance or circumstances that warranted a life sentence, there was no possibility that 76 486 U.S. 367 (1988). 77 Id. at 378 . 78 Id. at 384 . 2009The foreman signed the answer that stated: “We, the jury, unanimously find and determine that the answer to this Special Issue is ‘No.’” Because no juror believed there was a circumstance or circumstances that warranted a life sentence, there was no possibility that 76 486 U.S. 367 (1988). 77 Id. at 378 . 78 Id. at 384 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pickens v. State
green
1 sentence2008Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 126 (Tex. App.–Austin 1998, no pet.). 85 We recently reiterated this duty in Pickens v. State, 165 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Arline v. State
green
1 sentence2005Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484 (“[art.37.07, § 3(a)’s] requirement that the jury be satisfied of the defendant’s culpability in the extraneous offenses and bad acts is thus ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 352 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (“a statutorily defined word or phrase must be included in the charge as part of *721 the ‘law applicable to the case’ ”); Goodman v. State, 8 S.W.3d 362, 364 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (“When a witness who is an accomplice as a matter of law gives testimony to which article 38.14 applies, the statutorily required instruction is ‘ | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.