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.
21 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gigliobianco v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Further, it is well-settled that Article 38.371(b) provides a valid non-character-conformity purpose 8 A. PROBATIVE VALUE AND STATE’S NEED FOR THE EVIDENCE Under the first two Gigliobianco factors we are to assess the evidence’s probative value and importance to the State’s case. 210 S.W.3d at 641–42; James, 623 S.W.3d at 547. 2023Probative Value The first two Gigliobianco factors assess “probative value,” Rule 403’s “first key phrase.” Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 641 . | 6 | 19 |
Pawlak v. Stategreen2 sentences2025As a result, the first two Gigliobianco factors weigh in favor of admission. 13 While the extraneous offenses were undoubtedly prejudicial, “all evidence against a defendant is . . . designed to be prejudicial.” Id. at 549 (quoting Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. 2024As to the third through fifth Gigliobianco factors—any tendency of the evidence to suggest a decision on an improper basis, any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury, and any tendency that a jury that has not been equipped to evaluate the probative force of the evidence would give it undue weight—both Roof and the State agree that this kind of evidence is “inherently inflammatory.” See, e.g., Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 809 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alami v. State
green
1 sentence2025As a result, the first two Gigliobianco factors weigh in favor of admission. 13 While the extraneous offenses were undoubtedly prejudicial, “all evidence against a defendant is . . . designed to be prejudicial.” Id. at 549 (quoting Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.