139 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 1988–2026 38 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 |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d at 157 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984), the appropriate harm analysis depends upon whether the defendant preserved error by bringing the improper 25 omission to the trial court's attention. 2015Under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d at 157 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984), the appropriate harm analysis depends upon whether the defendant preserved error by bringing the improper omission to the trial court's attention. | 17 | 19 |
Ngo v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Id. 2024Id. | 8 | 46 |
Herron v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Id. at 632 . 2020Id. at 632 . | 4 | 11 |
Sodipo v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Cf. Sodipo , 815 S.W.2d at 556 (finding a defendant preserved his claim by specifically objecting to the indictment error). 2005Cf. Sodipo, 815 S.W.2d at 556 (finding a defendant preserved his claim by specifically objecting to the indictment error). | 4 | 4 |
Swearingen v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d). 2023Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d). | 3 | 3 |
Middleton v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Id. 2012The degree of harm necessary for reversal depends on whether the defendant preserved the error by objection. 22 Id. | 2 | 8 |
Issa v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Issa, 826 S.W.2d at 161 . 2011See Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 5 |
Xavier Shrod Dukes v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Cf. Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Tex. 11 App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (providing that the defendant preserved error by objecting “to the empanelment of several jurors on whom he claimed he would have used peremptory challenges had his challenges for cause been granted or had he received the additional strikes that he had requested”); see also Tillman v. State, No. 14-98-01233- CR, 2001 WL 543666 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 24, 2001, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (defendant preserved error when he requested and was denied ten additiona 2020See Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (providing that the defendant preserved error by objecting “to the empanelment of several jurors on whom he claimed he would have used peremptory challenges had his challenges for cause been granted or had he received the additional strikes that he had requested”); see also Tillman v. State, No. 14-98-01233- CR, 2001 WL 543666 , at *3, 2001 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 24, 2001, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (defendant preserved error when he requested and was denied ten addit | 2 | 2 |
Reeves, Gary Patrickgreen2 sentences2024Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. 2021Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Casanova, Matthew Johngreen2 sentences2015See Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 ; see also Casanova, 383 S.W.3d at 533 - 34. 2013See Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 ; see also Casanova, 383 S.W.3d at 533 -34 3 (applying Almanza). | 2 | 2 |
Huizar v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Huizar v. State , 29 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd). 2002Huizar v. State , 29 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Sakil v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Sakil v. State, 287 S.W.3d 23 , 25–26 (Tex. Crim. 2026Sakil v. State, 287 S.W.3d 23 , 25–26 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 23 |
Adrian Biera v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Biera v. State, 280 S.W.3d 388, 394 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Mendez v. State, 545 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rogers, Williamgreen1 sentence2019If, as in this case, the defendant preserved error by objecting at trial, we reverse if the error caused “some harm.” Rogers v. State, 550 S.W.3d 190, 191 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Cook, 858 S.W.2d at 473 (after court sustained defendant's objection, defendant did not ask for limiting instruction or move for - 25 - mistrial). | 1 | 1 |
Halbrook v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Halbrook, 322 S.W.3d at 722 ; Zarco, 210 S.W.3d at 828-29 ; Long, 800 S.W.2d at 548 . | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pickens v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Henry 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Crawford, 541 U.S. at 36 , 124 S.Ct. at 1355 . 3 . 2005Crawford , 541 U.S. at 36 , 124 S. Ct. at 1355 . [3] In issue three, we have already overruled Rios’s complaint concerning the adequacy of the corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony under Article 38.14 as required by Cathey v. State , 992 S.W.2d 460 , 462–63 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 2004–2006 |
Bill Boyd Kuhn v. State
green
2 sentences2016See Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . 2015Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . | 3 | 2015–2016 |
Guzman v. State
green
1 sentence2024Rogers, 677 S.W.3d at 712; Guzman, 539 S.W.3d at 400 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Riddle Power, LLC
green
1 sentence2023Subsequently, in MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Riddle Power, LLC, an appellate court found that a defendant preserved error as to the economic loss rule when it raised the issue for the first time in a post-trial motion. 472 S.W.3d at 411 n.8. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Turner, Albert James
green
1 sentence2023To preserve a McCoy complaint, a defendant must present “express statements of [his] will to maintain innocence.” Turner, 570 S.W.3d at 276 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2016) (providing that the defendant preserved error where he made eleven specific challenges for cause, used peremptory challenges on the complained-of venire members, exhausted all of his peremptory strikes, was denied his request for additional strikes, and was forced to accept an objectionable juror to sit on the jury); Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 7 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ferreira v. State
green
1 sentence2019See Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743 ; Ferreira, 514 S.W.3d at 300 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brooks v. State
green
1 sentence2015Brooks, 357 S.W.3d at 782 (citing Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Draughon v. State
green
1 sentence2015App. 1983) contains harm standards for "both 'fundamental error and (explaining that term acquiring technical meaning ordinary reversible error' in jury charges." 5 As a result, need not necessarily be defined). all jury charge error must be considered, whether or not 11 Medford, 13 S.W.3d at 772. the defendant preserved error. 6 And we have specifically 12 See Draughon v. State, 831 S.W.2d 331 , 338 applied the harmless error rule of Art. 36.19 to Art. 38.23. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barrios v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Long v. State
green
1 sentence2014See Halbrook, 322 S.W.3d at 722 ; Zarco, 210 S.W.3d at 828-29 ; Long, 800 S.W.2d at 548 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Zarco v. State
green
1 sentence2014See Halbrook, 322 S.W.3d at 722 ; Zarco, 210 S.W.3d at 828-29 ; Long, 800 S.W.2d at 548 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Harris County v. Smith green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Cathey v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Garza v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| DeBlanc v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.