affirmative link analysis (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

affirmative link analysis in Texas

19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (18)

CaseFollowedCited
Brown v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1995 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1996–2009
2 sentences

2008In Brown, we learned that the affirmative link analysis came to be a doctrine in its own right but never acquired the characteristics of a legal rule. 911 S.W.2d at 747 .

2008In Brown, we learned that the affirmative link analysis came to be a doctrine in its own right but never acquired the characteristics of a legal rule. 911 S.W.2d at 747 .

35
Martinets v. Stategreen
texapp · 1994 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

33
Dixon v. Stategreen
texapp · 1996 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

33
Tate v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2016 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023
2 sentences

2023See Tate, 500 S.W.3d at 414 (listing a defendant’s “presence when a search is conducted” as one of the affirmative link factors).

2019Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 413-14 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016).

22
Washington v. Stategreen
texapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012
2 sentences

2012“The number of factors present is not as important as the logical force or the degree to which the factors, alone or in combination, tend to affirmatively link the accused to the contraband.” Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); see Isbell v. State, 246 S.W.3d 235, 238 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Washington v. State, 215 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.).

2008Washington v. State, 215 S.W.3d 551, 554-55 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (citing Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.9). 17 The instant case was tried and briefed under the well-established affirmative link doctrine.13 The State relies specifically upon certain factors as constituting an affirmative link 13 The rise and development of the Texas affirmative link doctrine and related matters are discussed in Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744, 745-49 (Tex. Crim.

22
Poindexter v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See Poindexter, 153 S.W.3d at 745 .

2010See Poindexter , 153 S.W.3d at 745 .

22
Tucker v. Stategreen
texapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See Tucker, 183 S.W.3d at 510 ; Jenkins, 76 S.W.3d at 712-13 .

2008See Tucker , 183 S.W.3d at 510 ; Jenkins , 76 S.W.3d at 712-13 .

22
Williams v. Stategreen
texapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995Villarreal v. State, 865 S.W.2d 501 , 503 n. 1 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d); Williams v. State, 859 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

1995Villarreal v. State, 865 S.W.2d 501 , 503 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref'd); Williams v. State, 859 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

22
Villarreal v. Stategreen
texapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995Villarreal v. State, 865 S.W.2d 501 , 503 n. 1 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d); Williams v. State, 859 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

1995Villarreal v. State, 865 S.W.2d 501 , 503 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref'd); Williams v. State, 859 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd).

12
Howell v. Stategreen
texapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995However, in a recently published opinion, Howell v. State, No. 2-93-454-CR, 1995 WL 515836 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 31, 1995, no pet. h.) this court specifically rejected the court's prior decision in Brown to the extent it held that the affirmative link analysis was no longer viable as an element of proof in possession offenses.

1995However, in a recently published opinion, Howell v. State, No. 2-93-454-CR, 1995 WL 515836 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth Aug. 31, 1995, no pet. h.) this court specifically rejected the court’s prior decision in Brown to the extent it held that the affirmative link analysis was no longer viable as an element of proof in possession offenses.

12
Isbell v. Stategreen
texapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012“The number of factors present is not as important as the logical force or the degree to which the factors, alone or in combination, tend to affirmatively link the accused to the contraband.” Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); see Isbell v. State, 246 S.W.3d 235, 238 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Washington v. State, 215 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.).

11
Bates v. Stategreen
texapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012“The number of factors present is not as important as the logical force or the degree to which the factors, alone or in combination, tend to affirmatively link the accused to the contraband.” Bates v. State, 155 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); see Isbell v. State, 246 S.W.3d 235, 238 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.); Washington v. State, 215 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.).

11
Cuong Quoc Ly v. Stategreen
texapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010Cuong Quoc Ly v. State , 273 S.W.3d 778, 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d).

11
Castellano v. Stategreen
texapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008App. 1995); see also Castellano v. State, 810 S.W.2d 800, 805-06 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, no pet.).

11
Batiste v. Stategreen
texapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See Batiste v. State , No. 01-04-00460-CR, 2006 WL 2885136 , at *4 ( Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 12, 2006, no pet.) ( contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where ownership of vehicle was unclear) ; Cole v. State , 194 S.W.3d 538 , 550–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where vehicle was registered under name of someone other than defendant); Edwards , 178 S.W.3d at 143–44 (holding evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed contraband); Gilbert , 874 S.W.2d at 298

11
Vela v. Stategreen
texapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995See Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 139-40 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1988, pet. refd); Vela v. State, 681 S.W.2d 739, 740 (TexApp. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. refd); TexJPenal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon 1994) (“Possession” means actual care, custody, control, or management). 5 In analyzing sufficiency of the evidence to show possession, both Young and Vela apply the affirmative link analysis.

1995See Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 137, 139-40 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd); Vela v. State, 681 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. ref'd); Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon 1994) ("Possession" means actual care, custody, control, or management). [5] In analyzing sufficiency of the evidence to show possession, both Young and Vela apply the affirmative link analysis.

11
Eaglin v. Stategreen
texapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
11
Young v. Stategreen
texapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Evans v. State green
texcrimapp · 2006
2 sentences

2019Evans notes, however, the list is non-exclusive, and the affirmative link analysis is not a separate test for sufficiency. 202 S.W.3d at 162 n.9. 6 the jury finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2008The doctrine has been shorn of part of its name, id., but appears still functional and not completely abandoned. [12] The instant case was tried and briefed under the well-established affirmative link doctrine. [13] The State relies specifically *693 upon certain factors as constituting an affirmative link between appellant and the contraband to support the conviction.

32008–2019
Hall v. State green
texapp · 2002
2 sentences

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

2008Hall, 86 S.W.3d at 240 ; Dixon v. State, 918 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.); Martinets v. State, 884 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no pet.).

32008–2008
Geesa v. State red
texcrimapp · 1991
2 sentences

2009LASTER—11 implemented at trial by instructing the jury that circumstantial evidence must “exclude, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis except the defendant’s guilt.” 47 The same standard carried over on appeal to test the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.48 But once we recognized that circumstantial evidence was as valuable as direct evidence, we abandoned the reasonable hypothesis test.49 To explain why the affirmative link test survived the termination of the reasonable hypothesis test, we pointed to opinions applying the affirmative link test but not mentioning the

1995The parties engage in much argument over whether the affirmative link requirement survived the changes in sufficiency review wrought by Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

21995–2009
Jenkins v. State green
texapp · 2002
2 sentences

2008See Tucker, 183 S.W.3d at 510 ; Jenkins, 76 S.W.3d at 712-13 .

2008See Tucker , 183 S.W.3d at 510 ; Jenkins , 76 S.W.3d at 712-13 .

22008–2008
Williams v. State green
texcrimapp · 1973
1 sentence

2023He points this Court to what he states was the source of the presence factor: Williams v. State, 498 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. Crim.

12023–2023
Laster v. State green
texapp · 2007
1 sentence

2009App. 2000). 43 Laster, 229 S.W.3d at 791 (quoting Margraves, 34 S.W.3d at 919 ). 44 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim.

12009–2009
Paulson v. State green
texcrimapp · 2000
1 sentence

2009App. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim.

12009–2009
Margraves v. State green
texcrimapp · 2000
2 sentences

2009The passage in Margraves, cited by the court of appeals, was first articulated in our Brown v. State decision.44 The issue in Brown was whether the affirmative link test, used to determine whether an accused intended to possess drugs, still applied after the reasonable hypothesis test was abolished.45 The reasonable hypothesis test developed out of our suspicion of convictions based wholly on circumstantial evidence.46 The test was 42 34 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim.

2009App. 2000). 43 Laster, 229 S.W.3d at 791 (quoting Margraves, 34 S.W.3d at 919 ). 44 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim.

12009–2009
Cole v. State green
texapp · 2006
1 sentence

2007See Batiste v. State , No. 01-04-00460-CR, 2006 WL 2885136 , at *4 ( Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 12, 2006, no pet.) ( contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where ownership of vehicle was unclear) ; Cole v. State , 194 S.W.3d 538 , 550–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where vehicle was registered under name of someone other than defendant); Edwards , 178 S.W.3d at 143–44 (holding evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed contraband); Gilbert , 874 S.W.2d at 298

12007–2007
Edwards v. State green
texapp · 2005
1 sentence

2007See Batiste v. State , No. 01-04-00460-CR, 2006 WL 2885136 , at *4 ( Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 12, 2006, no pet.) ( contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where ownership of vehicle was unclear) ; Cole v. State , 194 S.W.3d 538 , 550–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where vehicle was registered under name of someone other than defendant); Edwards , 178 S.W.3d at 143–44 (holding evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed contraband); Gilbert , 874 S.W.2d at 298

12007–2007
Gilbert v. State green
texapp · 1994
1 sentence

2007See Batiste v. State , No. 01-04-00460-CR, 2006 WL 2885136 , at *4 ( Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 12, 2006, no pet.) ( contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where ownership of vehicle was unclear) ; Cole v. State , 194 S.W.3d 538 , 550–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (contraband affirmatively linked to defendant where vehicle was registered under name of someone other than defendant); Edwards , 178 S.W.3d at 143–44 (holding evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed contraband); Gilbert , 874 S.W.2d at 298

12007–2007
Berry v. State green
texapp · 1992
2 sentences

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App. — Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev’d, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev'd, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

11995–1995
Graybill v. State green
texcrimapp · 1980
11995–1995
Thomas v. State green
texapp · 1991
2 sentences

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App. — Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev’d, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev'd, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

11995–1995
Thomas v. State green
texcrimapp · 1991
2 sentences

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App. — Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev’d, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

1995The cases he cites, namely, Graybill v. State, 601 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), Berry v. State, 833 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.), and Thomas v. State, 801 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), rev'd, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), do not support this proposition.

11995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 12.42 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.03 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 2.01 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 6.02 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 7.02 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check