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.
22 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2014A. Applicable Law The doctrine of provocation (or “provoking the difficulty”) is a concept in criminal law that acts as a limitation or total bar on a defendant’s right to self-defense. 2 Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tex. Crim. 2009Cf. Smith v. State , 965 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (provoking the difficulty “acts as a limitation or total bar on a defendant’s right to self-defense”). | 14 | 16 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Considering the State argued provocation to the Court of Appeals, the Amarillo Court should have addressed it. 42 The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a Court of Appeals to address every issue raised and necessary for a final disposition of the appeal.43 38 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §9.31 (b) (4) (West 2013); see also Kennedy v. State, 193 S. W. 3d 645, 654 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d.) . 39 See Kennedy v. State, 193 S. W. 3d 645, 654 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d.) (provoking the use of force acts as a limitation or total bar on a Defendant’s right to self- de 2015A Court of Appeals is obliged to address every issue raised and necessary for a final disposition of the appeal. 14 The failure to comply with Rule 47.1 12 Evans. v. State, No. 07-14-00145-CR at *11 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Mar. 23, 2015, no pet. h.)(mem. op. not designated for publication). 13 Tex. Penal Code Ann.§9.31 (b) (4) (West 2013); Kennedy v. State, 193 S. W. 3d 645, 654 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d.) (provoking the use of force acts as a limitation or total bar on a Defendant’s right to self-defense). 14 Tex. R. | 4 | 4 |
Ford v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Considering the State argued provocation to the Court of Appeals, the Amarillo Court should have addressed it. 42 The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a Court of Appeals to address every issue raised and necessary for a final disposition of the appeal.43 38 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §9.31 (b) (4) (West 2013); see also Kennedy v. State, 193 S. W. 3d 645, 654 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d.) . 39 See Kennedy v. State, 193 S. W. 3d 645, 654 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d.) (provoking the use of force acts as a limitation or total bar on a Defendant’s right to self- de | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hooper v. State
green
2 sentences2015“The doctrine of provocation is commonly reviewing court must give deference to the responsibility of referred to in our jurisprudence, is the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflict in testimony, to a concept in criminal law which weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from acts as a limitation or total bar on basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 , a defendant's right to self-defense. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318– The phrase “provoking the difficulty” 19). 2015“The doctrine of provocation is commonly reviewing court must give deference to the responsibility of referred to in our jurisprudence, is the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflict in testimony, to a concept in criminal law which weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from acts as a limitation or total bar on basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 , a defendant's right to self-defense. 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318– The phrase “provoking the difficulty” 19). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2011App. 1992) (no error in omitting self-defense instruction where appellant initiated altercation and there was no evidence that he attempted to abandon encounter); Kennedy v. State, 193 S.W.3d 645, 654 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (“Provoking the use of force acts as a limitation or total bar on a defendant’s right to self-defense.”). 12 In addition to the evidence that Vaughn initiated the altercation, there is also no evidence showing that Vaughn was in apprehension or fear of being the recipient of unlawful use of force from Jolene when he began hitting Jolene and no evidence show 2011In addition to the evidence that Vaughn initiated the altercation, there is also no evidence showing that Vaughn was in apprehension or fear of being the recipient of unlawful use of force from Jolene when he began hitting Jolene and no evidence showing any observable manifestations of Vaughn's alleged belief that he needed to hit Jolene in order to prevent her from using unlawful force against him. (5) See Smith , 676 S.W.2d at 585 ; Reed , 703 S.W.2d at 385 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2011App. 1992) (no error in omitting self-defense instruction where appellant initiated altercation and there was no evidence that he attempted to abandon encounter); Kennedy v. State, 193 S.W.3d 645, 654 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (“Provoking the use of force acts as a limitation or total bar on a defendant’s right to self-defense.”). 12 In addition to the evidence that Vaughn initiated the altercation, there is also no evidence showing that Vaughn was in apprehension or fear of being the recipient of unlawful use of force from Jolene when he began hitting Jolene and no evidence show 2011In addition to the evidence that Vaughn initiated the altercation, there is also no evidence showing that Vaughn was in apprehension or fear of being the recipient of unlawful use of force from Jolene when he began hitting Jolene and no evidence showing any observable manifestations of Vaughn's alleged belief that he needed to hit Jolene in order to prevent her from using unlawful force against him. (5) See Smith , 676 S.W.2d at 585 ; Reed , 703 S.W.2d at 385 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
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.