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.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Williams v. State, 851 S.W.2d 282, 284, 287 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). 2004See Williams v. State, 851 S.W.2d 282, 287 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). . | 5 | 5 |
Zamora, Jaime Arturogreen2 sentences2024See id. at 513–14. 12 As we have said, Valles was not an accomplice, so Appellant’s counsel’s failure to request an accomplice-witness instruction cannot constitute deficient performance. 2013Regarding deficient performance in this context, see, e.g., Zamora v. State, No. PD-1395-12, 411 S.W.3d 504, 513-14 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) ("The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a matter of trial strategy.”). 10 . | 2 | 2 |
Tolbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2013The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a *514 matter of strategy. 5 Compare Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61-62 (mistake-of-fact instruction matter of strategy); Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (same); Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (lesser-included-offense instruction is matter of strategy to pursue outright acquittal); Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 250 (limiting instruction is matter of strategy to minimize jury’s recollection of unfavorable evidence). 2013App. 1999) (same); Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Granger v. Stategreen2 sentences2013The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a *514 matter of strategy. 5 Compare Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61-62 (mistake-of-fact instruction matter of strategy); Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (same); Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (lesser-included-offense instruction is matter of strategy to pursue outright acquittal); Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 250 (limiting instruction is matter of strategy to minimize jury’s recollection of unfavorable evidence). 2013Zamora - 17 The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a matter of strategy.5 Compare Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61–62 (mistake-of-fact instruction matter of strategy); Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Posey v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Id. 1 Accordingly, the jury charge’s omission of the defensive issue of defense of property did not constitute error. 2013The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a *514 matter of strategy. 5 Compare Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61-62 (mistake-of-fact instruction matter of strategy); Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (same); Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (lesser-included-offense instruction is matter of strategy to pursue outright acquittal); Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 250 (limiting instruction is matter of strategy to minimize jury’s recollection of unfavorable evidence). | 1 | 4 |
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2008If the Legislature simply designates that the instruction or issue be submitted, we would construe the failure to submit as error, regardless of who would benefit from the submission.85 To allow the omission of a parole instruction to be completely 82 See, for example, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597-609 (2002) (viewing death penalty sentencing procedure in which at least one aggravating circumstance must be found to justify the death penalty [as is constitutionally required] as increasing punishment beyond the statutory maximum based upon a finding of fact, thus requiring a jury determinat 1998Id. | 1 | 2 |
Rogers v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Rogers, 105 S.W.3d at 640 (2) Appellant did not preserve this complaint for appellate review, therefore the trial court did not err The parties disagree as to whether the evidence affirmatively raised an issue as to voluntariness. | 1 | 1 |
Gamino, Cesar Alejandrogreen1 sentence2020Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jester v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Jester v. State, 64 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The accomplice-witness rule cannot be reasonably categorized as a defensive issue that a defense attorney might forego as a *514 matter of strategy. 5 Compare Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61-62 (mistake-of-fact instruction matter of strategy); Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (same); Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (lesser-included-offense instruction is matter of strategy to pursue outright acquittal); Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 250 (limiting instruction is matter of strategy to minimize jury’s recollection of unfavorable evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Ring v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2008If the Legislature simply designates that the instruction or issue be submitted, we would construe the failure to submit as error, regardless of who would benefit from the submission.85 To allow the omission of a parole instruction to be completely 82 See, for example, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597-609 (2002) (viewing death penalty sentencing procedure in which at least one aggravating circumstance must be found to justify the death penalty [as is constitutionally required] as increasing punishment beyond the statutory maximum based upon a finding of fact, thus requiring a jury determinat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
1 sentence2008If the Legislature simply designates that the instruction or issue be submitted, we would construe the failure to submit as error, regardless of who would benefit from the submission.85 To allow the omission of a parole instruction to be completely 82 See, for example, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597-609 (2002) (viewing death penalty sentencing procedure in which at least one aggravating circumstance must be found to justify the death penalty [as is constitutionally required] as increasing punishment beyond the statutory maximum based upon a finding of fact, thus requiring a jury determinat | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Schope v. State
green
2 sentences1984Section 2.03(e) states that “[a] ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.” See Schope v. State, 647 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d); Memet v. State, 642 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd) (conviction reversed on other grounds). 1984Section 2.03(e) states that "[a] ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense." See Schope v. State, 647 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd); Memet v. State, 642 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd) (conviction reversed on other grounds). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Memet v. State
green
2 sentences1984Section 2.03(e) states that “[a] ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.” See Schope v. State, 647 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d); Memet v. State, 642 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd) (conviction reversed on other grounds). 1984Section 2.03(e) states that "[a] ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense." See Schope v. State, 647 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd); Memet v. State, 642 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd) (conviction reversed on other grounds). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Smith v. Northwest National Bank
green
1 sentence1969Miller v. Deahl, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W. 679 , (writ ref.); Smith v. Northwest National Bank, supra. We have concluded that the proof, as a matter of law, fails to establish neither the defensive issue of waiver nor estoppel. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Miller v. Deahl
green
1 sentence1969Miller v. Deahl, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W. 679 , (writ ref.); Smith v. Northwest National Bank, supra. We have concluded that the proof, as a matter of law, fails to establish neither the defensive issue of waiver nor estoppel. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
D. & H. Truck Line v. Hopson
neutral
1 sentence1936Truck Line v. Hopson (Tex.Civ.App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 1013 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Levy v. Rogers
green
1 sentence1936In Levy v. Rogers (Tex.Civ.App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 304, 307 , it is said: “Appellants only plead contributory negligence on the appellee’s part generally, whereas ‘the defensive-issue’ they claim under this first presentment to have been erroneously refused was embodied in six requested special issues, whereby several different specific acts were grouped as if constituting contributory negligence in each particular, their pleadings containing no reference to them; in such circumstances, the court having otherwise submitted the issues on that subject that were answered favorably to the appellee, the | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.