141 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wesbrook v. Stategreen2 sentences2024In other words, an appellate court must determine whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non- persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue[.]” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. 2024In other words, an appellate court must determine whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non- persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue[.]” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. | 15 | 16 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023See Wisser v. State, 350 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Norman v. State, No. 13-10-00017-CR, 2011 WL 2732673 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jul. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Mauro v. State, 235 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. ref’d); Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234 2 “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross-examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007). 3 Crawford v. Washi 2023Consistent with the Confrontation Clause guarantee, a testimonial hearsay statement may be admitted in evidence against a defendant “only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” Id. at 59 . “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross- examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007) (parenthetical material in original). -8- Dissenting Opinion 04-21-00376-CR that he was present during the | 12 | 31 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2024In other words, an appellate court must determine whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non- persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue[.]” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. 2024In other words, an appellate court must determine whether there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non- persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue[.]” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. | 11 | 31 |
Whorton v. Bocktinggreen2 sentences2023See Wisser v. State, 350 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Norman v. State, No. 13-10-00017-CR, 2011 WL 2732673 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jul. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Mauro v. State, 235 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. ref’d); Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234 2 “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross-examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007). 3 Crawford v. Washi 2023Consistent with the Confrontation Clause guarantee, a testimonial hearsay statement may be admitted in evidence against a defendant “only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” Id. at 59 . “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross- examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007) (parenthetical material in original). -8- Dissenting Opinion 04-21-00376-CR that he was present during the | 11 | 12 |
De La Paz v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Ed. 2d 177 (2004); see De La Paz, 273 S.W.3d at 680 . “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross-examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 , 127 S. Ct. 1173, 1182 , 167 L. 2015Consistent with the 7 Confrontation Clause guarantee, a testimonial hearsay statement may be admitted in evidence against a defendant “only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1373–74, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); see De La Paz, 273 S.W.3d at 680 . “[T]he Crawford rule reflects the Framers’ preferred mechanism (cross-examination) for ensuring that inaccurate out-of-court testimonial statements are not used to convict an accused.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 4 | 11 | 12 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See also Wall v. State , 184 S.W.3d 730, 742-43 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (applying hybrid standard of review to Crawford issue); Mason v. State , 225 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd) (same). 2011See also Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742-43 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (applying hybrid standard of review to Crawford issue); Mason v. State, 225 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd) (same). | 8 | 8 |
Wall v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See also Wall v. State , 184 S.W.3d 730, 742-43 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (applying hybrid standard of review to Crawford issue); Mason v. State , 225 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd) (same). 2011See also Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742-43 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (applying hybrid standard of review to Crawford issue); Mason v. State, 225 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2007, pet. ref'd) (same). | 7 | 8 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Thus, a Crawford error does not require reversal unless there is a reasonable possibility that, within the context of the entire trial, the perceived error “moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion on a particular issue.” Id. 2012Thus, a Crawford error does not require reversal unless there is a reasonable possibility that, within the context of the entire trial, the perceived error “moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion on a particular issue.” Id. | 6 | 15 |
Zuliani v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Id.; Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). 2008Id.; Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). | 6 | 6 |
Langham v. Stategreen2 sentences2021We must ask ourselves “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion on a particular issue.” Id. 2021We must ask ourselves “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion on a particular issue.” Id. | 5 | 13 |
Woods v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 114 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). 2005In Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 113-114 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), the court found that a co-defendant’s casual “street corner” remarks to acquaintances were admissible as a declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule, Tex.R. | 5 | 5 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007It is important to note that Detective Martinez did not ask appellant or the adult passenger any questions and did not inspect the interior or the trunk of the Oldsmobile for drugs before approaching C.D. 9 Thus, when Detective Martinez arrived, his first priority was to secure the scene by ensuring that Officer Holsey had not missed identifying a possible weapon hidden in C.D.’s pants. 10 See Davis, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 (holding that courts should consider whether the “primary purpose” of the officer’s questioning was “to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal pros 2007It is important to note that Detective Martinez did not ask appellant or the adult passenger any questions and did not inspect the interior or the trunk of the Oldsmobile for drugs before approaching C.D. 9 Thus, when Detective Martinez arrived, his first priority was to secure the scene by ensuring that Officer Holsey had not missed identifying a possible weapon hidden in C.D.’s pants. 10 See Davis, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 (holding that courts should consider whether the “primary purpose” of the officer’s questioning was “to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal pros | 3 | 3 |
Spencer v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Spencer v. State, 162 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). 2015Spencer v. State, 162 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). | 3 | 3 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Wilson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 . 2011Wilson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd); see Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 . | 3 | 3 |
Bunton v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Bunton v. State, 136 S.W.3d 355, 369 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. ref’d) (holding alleged Crawford error waived by failure to object). 2005See Bunton v. State , 136 S.W.3d 355, 369 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, pet. ref'd) (holding alleged Crawford error waived by failure to object). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Webregreen2 sentences2015See State v. Webre, 347 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.); 2 Wayne R. 2015See State v. Webre, 347 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Tex. App.-Austin 2011, no pet.); 2 Wayne R. | 2 | 2 |
David Leroy Taflinger v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Taflinger v. State, 414 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). 2015See Taflinger v. State, 414 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
McCarthy v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Compare Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 9-11 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) Crawford error), Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904-05 (Crawford error), Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (Crawford error), Davis v. State, 203 *362 S.W.3d 845, 850-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 , 127 S.Ct. 2037 , 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 , 124 S.Ct. 2836 , 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), 2008App. 2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), with Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 620 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Lagrone v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Compare Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 9-11 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) Crawford error), Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904-05 (Crawford error), Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (Crawford error), Davis v. State, 203 *362 S.W.3d 845, 850-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 , 127 S.Ct. 2037 , 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 , 124 S.Ct. 2836 , 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), 2008App. 2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), with Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 620 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
| Clay v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hernandez v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Del Carmen Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Del Carmen Hernandez v. State, 219 S.W.3d 6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006), aff’d, 273 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (witness was not available to testify and the Confrontation Clause was implicated regarding out-of-court statements used where witness invoked Fifth Amendment right not to testify); Laredo v. State, 194 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (where child actually testified but refused to answer any questions about alleged offense, either simply not responding to questions, stating she did not remember what happened, or stating she did not want to talk a 2009See Del Carmen Hernandez v. State , 219 S.W.3d 6 ( Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006), aff'd , 273 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (witness was not available to testify and the Confrontation Clause was implicated regarding out-of-court statements used where witness invoked Fifth Amendment right not to testify); Laredo v. State , 194 S.W.3d 637 ( Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006 , pet. ref'd) (where child actually testified but refused to answer an y questions about alleged offense , either simply not responding to questions, stating she did not reme mber what happened, or stating she did not want | 2 | 2 |
| Marc v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Ford v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Ford Motor Co. v. Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Brewer v. Nationsbank of Texas, N.A.green | 2 | 2 |
| Caldwell v. Barnesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Culver v. Pickensgreen | 2 | 2 |
Edwards v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2011App. 2006) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 (2007). 9 Appellant‘s swaying and failing field sobriety tests; and Jackson‘s testimony about receiving Cox‘s call. 2009Compare Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 9-11 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) Crawford error), Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904-05 (Crawford error), Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (Crawford error), Davis v. State, 203 *362 S.W.3d 845, 850-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 , 127 S.Ct. 2037 , 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 , 124 S.Ct. 2836 , 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), | 1 | 4 |
Kearney v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Kearney, 181 S.W.3d at 441-42 . 2008Kearney , 181 S.W.3d at 441-42 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re M.H v. P.green2 sentences2018App. 2004) (noting that the threshold question under a Crawford analysis is whether an out-of-court statement was testimonial or non-testimonial in nature); In re M.H.V.-P., 341 S.W.3d 553, 557 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.). 2018App. 2004) (noting that the threshold question under a Crawford analysis is whether an out-of-court statement was testimonial or non-testimonial in nature); In re M.H.V.-P., 341 S.W.3d 553, 557 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2019In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court made clear that Crawford’s rule reaches forensic evidence, which is not “uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.” 557 U.S. 305, 318 (2009). 2015Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 310– 11 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Carroll v. Potter, Postmaster Generalgreen2 sentences2009Compare Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 9-11 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) Crawford error), Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904-05 (Crawford error), Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (Crawford error), Davis v. State, 203 *362 S.W.3d 845, 850-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 , 127 S.Ct. 2037 , 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 , 124 S.Ct. 2836 , 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), 2008App. 2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), with Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 620 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Compare Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 9-11 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) Crawford error), Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904-05 (Crawford error), Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670, 690-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (Crawford error), Davis v. State, 203 *362 S.W.3d 845, 850-53 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344 , 127 S.Ct. 2037 , 167 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (erroneous admission of confession), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905 , 124 S.Ct. 2836 , 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004), and McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d at 52-56 (erroneous admission of confession), 2008App. 2006) (Crawford error), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2037 (2007), Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 777-82 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
| Sarah Jean Clement v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wisser v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smart v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cross v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Vincent Gigante, Also Known as \Chingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Standefer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. Neal
green
2 sentences2018App. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 944 (2001)). 16 B. 2018App. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 944 (2001)). 16 B. | 3 | 2011–2018 |
Woodall v. State
green
2 sentences2014The Court of 14 Criminal Appeals held that the predicate “absence” implicating Crawford and “unavailability” as defined in the Crawford analysis and the Texas Rules of Evidence were two separate concepts, and that “where the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 642 , citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1937 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). 2014The Court of 14 Criminal Appeals held that the predicate “absence” implicating Crawford and “unavailability” as defined in the Crawford analysis and the Texas Rules of Evidence were two separate concepts, and that “where the declarant is not absent, but is present to testify and to submit to cross-examination, our cases, if anything, support the conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem.” Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 642 , citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1937 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). | 3 | 2014–2017 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2007The error does not require reversal unless there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue.” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). 2007The error does not require reversal unless there is “a reasonable possibility that the Crawford error, within the context of the entire trial, ‘moved the jury from a state of non-persuasion to one of persuasion’ on a particular issue.” Id. at 852-53 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Laredo v. State
green
2 sentences2009See Del Carmen Hernandez v. State, 219 S.W.3d 6 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006), aff’d, 273 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (witness was not available to testify and the Confrontation Clause was implicated regarding out-of-court statements used where witness invoked Fifth Amendment right not to testify); Laredo v. State, 194 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (where child actually testified but refused to answer any questions about alleged offense, either simply not responding to questions, stating she did not remember what happened, or stating she did not want to talk a 2009See Del Carmen Hernandez v. State , 219 S.W.3d 6 ( Tex.App.--San Antonio 2006), aff'd , 273 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (witness was not available to testify and the Confrontation Clause was implicated regarding out-of-court statements used where witness invoked Fifth Amendment right not to testify); Laredo v. State , 194 S.W.3d 637 ( Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006 , pet. ref'd) (where child actually testified but refused to answer an y questions about alleged offense , either simply not responding to questions, stating she did not reme mber what happened, or stating she did not want | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| Grant v. State green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Vallez v. State green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Mick v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Mauro v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Trevino v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Doan, Ex Parte Dustin green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Rangel v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Rangel v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Chapman v. California red | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Hill green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Wilson v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Walker v. Packer green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Relators neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Palacios green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| California v. Green red | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Griffith v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Gonzalez v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Schneble v. Florida green | 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.