127 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cavazos, Abrahamgreen2 sentences2024The determination of whether to submit a lesser-included-offense issue to the jury is subject to the two-part “Aguilar/Rousseau test.” Id. at 382 . 2016“Courts apply the Aguilar/Rousseau test to determine whether an instruction on a lesser- included offense should be given to the jury.” Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 382 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). | 32 | 33 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Hall v. State, 158 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Tex. Crim. 2014Hall, 158 S.W.3d at 473 . | 20 | 21 |
Rousseau v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 2012) (citing to and relying on the Aguilar/Rousseau test); see also Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. 2018App. 2012) (citing to and relying on the Aguilar/Rousseau test); see also Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. | 17 | 31 |
Aguilar v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 1993); Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex. Crim. 2018App. 1993); Aguilar v. State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex. Crim. | 16 | 16 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 535 . 2008FLORES – 11 on evidence presented at trial.23 A defendant does not satisfy the second prong of the Royster/Rousseau test if there is evidence that he committed an offense that is a lesser-included of the charged offense but greater than the requested lesser-included offense.24 For instance, in Jackson v. State, the defendant was charged with capital murder and requested a jury charge on the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by recklessly causing serious bodily injury.25 The evidence clearly showed that the defendant had caused not merely serious bodily injury but death; the only pe | 13 | 18 |
State of Texas v. Meru, Markgreen2 sentences2017See id. at 162 (stating that first step of Rousseau analysis "is a question of law that does not depend on the evidence presented at trial"). 2016No facts relating to the type of entry are alleged in the indictment. 6 See id. at 162 (stating that first step of Rousseau analysis “is a question of law that does not depend on the evidence presented at trial”). | 12 | 12 |
Mathis v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Id. at 925-26 (holding that appellant failed to satisfy the second prong of the Rousseau test because he admitted to aiming and firing the gun and witnesses testified that his actions were calm and collected). 2009Id. at 925-26 (holding that appellant failed to satisfy the second prong of the Rousseau test because he admitted to aiming and firing the gun and witnesses testified that his actions were calm and collected). | 7 | 8 |
Bignall v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 . 2010Bignall, 887 S.W.2d at 23 . | 6 | 8 |
Grey v. Stategreen2 sentences2024In doing so, the court articulated a clear rule: “the State is not bound by the second prong of the Royster–Rousseau test.” Id. at 645. 2013See Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644 , 649–50 (Tex. Crim. 7 App. 2009 ) (explaining that, under the second prong of the Rousseau test, “we view the rationality of the lesser offense, not in isolation, but in comparison to the offense described in the charging instrument”). | 4 | 8 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Mathis, 67 S. W.3d at 925 (citing Moore v. State, 969 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. 2003Moore v. State , 969 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Goad, Joshua Leegreen2 sentences2013Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); see also Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). 2013Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); see also Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 4 | 4 |
Arevalo v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Arevalo v. State , 943 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. Crim. 2005Arevalo v. State , 943 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
McKinney v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524, 535-36 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 2010McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 925 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002), Hall v. State, 158 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). | 3 | 3 |
William David Brumbalow v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Brumbalow, 432 S.W.3d at 352 . 2014See Brumbalow, 432 S.W.3d at 352 . | 2 | 2 |
Stadt v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Stadt v. State , No. PD-1937-03, 2005 Tex. Crim. 2006See Stadt v. State, No. PD- 1937-03, 2005 Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Royster v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Specifically, the indictment alleged that Appellant intentionally and knowingly caused “contact of the female sexual organ of [T.M.H.], a child who 4 The court in Grey referred to the test as the “Royster–Rousseau test.” See Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. 1999See Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). | 1 | 3 |
Feldman v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 750-51 ; Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Forest, 989 S.W.2d at 367 . 2005Feldman , 71 S.W.3d at 750-51 ; Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Forest , 989 S.W.2d at 367 . | 1 | 3 |
Salinas v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Salinas , 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672 -73 . 2007See Salinas , 163 S.W.3d at 741 ; Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672 -73 . | 1 | 2 |
Burnett v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Navarro v. State, 863 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.App.Austin 1993, pet. ref'd) (finding testimony of a witness that it was her own sense and opinion that the defendant did not mean to kill the victim, did not require the inclusion of lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide); Burnett v. State, 865 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1993, pet. ref'd) (finding testimony that the defendant intentionally shot the deceased, but only intended to wound him, did not require the inclusion of the lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and criminally neglige 1995Navarro v. State, 863 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.App.Austin 1993, pet. ref'd) (finding testimony of a witness that it was her own sense and opinion that the defendant did not mean to kill the victim, did not require the inclusion of lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide); Burnett v. State, 865 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1993, pet. ref'd) (finding testimony that the defendant intentionally shot the deceased, but only intended to wound him, did not require the inclusion of the lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and criminally neglige | 1 | 2 |
Ritcherson, Kaitlyn Lucretiagreen1 sentence2024Ritcherson v. State, 568 S.W.3d 667, 670 (Tex. 84 Crim. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of J.R.C.S., a Juvenilegreen1 sentence2019Ann. art. 36.14; In re J.R.C.S., 393 S.W.3d 903, 913 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.). 12 In determining whether a defendant was entitled to have an instruction on a lesser offense included in the trial court’s charge to the jury, we employ the two-step Aguilar/Rousseau test. | 1 | 1 |
Knott v. Stategreen1 sentence2018State v. Meru, 414 S.W.3d 159, 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013); Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 382 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012); Knott 7 v. State, 513 S.W.3d 779, 791-92 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2017, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138, 143 (Tex. Crim. 2017See Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138, 143 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Hendrix v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See 150 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). 2017See 150 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Lidio Barrios v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Irving v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Quincy Jejuan Neelys v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lindon Tucker v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bergeron v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skinner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bell 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. State
green
2 sentences2007Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672-73 ; Montgomery , 198 S.W.3d at 91 . 2007Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672-73 ; Montgomery , 198 S.W.3d at 91 . | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Forest v. State
green
2 sentences2006Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 750-51 ; Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Forest, 989 S.W.2d at 367 . 2005Feldman , 71 S.W.3d at 750-51 ; Rousseau , 855 S.W.2d at 672 ; Forest , 989 S.W.2d at 367 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Arevalo v. State
green
2 sentences2005Appellant's reliance on Arevalo v. State , 970 S.W.2d 547 , is misplaced. 2005Appellant's reliance on Arevalo v. State , 970 S.W.2d 547 , is misplaced. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Almanza v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2009); Sifuentes v. State, 494 S.W.3d 806 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (recognizing State is no longer bound by the second prong of the Royster–Rousseau test). 21 appellant objected to this aspect of the charge, we review the entire record for “some harm.” Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sifuentes v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2009); Sifuentes v. State, 494 S.W.3d 806 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (recognizing State is no longer bound by the second prong of the Royster–Rousseau test). 21 appellant objected to this aspect of the charge, we review the entire record for “some harm.” Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mendez v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2009); Sifuentes v. State, 494 S.W.3d 806 , 818–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (recognizing State is no longer bound by the second prong of the Royster–Rousseau test). 21 appellant objected to this aspect of the charge, we review the entire record for “some harm.” Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Holiday v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Guzman v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Sibley v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ramos v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Navarro v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.