four Almanza factors (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

four Almanza factors in Texas

19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 9 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 (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Almanza v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1985 · cited in 13 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2025
2 sentences

2025Alkayyali — 14 The court of appeals analyzed each of the four Almanza factors to determine if Appellant suffered egregious harm. 14 First, the court of appeals explained that “the application paragraph authorized [the jury] to convict [Appellant] of murder without having to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused Moussa’s death.” 15 Second, the court of appeals held that the state of the evidence weighed in favor of egregious harm because “[i]f even a single juror was persuaded that Moussa’s health issues created enough reasonable doubt as to the cause of her death, then [Appellant] coul

2025Alkayyali — 14 The court of appeals analyzed each of the four Almanza factors to determine if Appellant suffered egregious harm. 14 First, the court of appeals explained that “the application paragraph authorized [the jury] to convict [Appellant] of murder without having to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused Moussa’s death.” 15 Second, the court of appeals held that the state of the evidence weighed in favor of egregious harm because “[i]f even a single juror was persuaded that Moussa’s health issues created enough reasonable doubt as to the cause of her death, then [Appellant] coul

913
Taylor v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2011 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2024
2 sentences

2024See Taylor, 332 S.W.3d at 490 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172 .

2023See Taylor, 332 S.W.3d at 490 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 .

24
Hutch v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2020
2 sentences

2020Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2019Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim.

22
Jackson v. Stategreen
texapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See 686 S.W.2d at 171 ; Jackson v. State, 285 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (“[G]iven the fact that the 8 jury had already been made aware of all this information from the very outset of the trial, it is difficult to imagine how a later delivery of the same information by including it in the charge on guilt/innocence could be harmful.”).

2016See 686 S.W.2d at 171 ; Jackson v. State, 285 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (“[G]iven the fact that the 8 jury had already been made aware of all this information from the very outset of the trial, it is difficult to imagine how a later delivery of the same information by including it in the charge on guilt/innocence could be harmful.”).

22
In Re MPgreen
texapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008App. 1998) (analyzing four Almanza factors and finding no harm in a less-than-unanimous-verdict murder case) with In re M.P. , 126 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no. pet.) (concluding M.P. clearly suffered at minimum some harm from this jury charge since it is unclear whether the jury was unanimous in finding M.P. guilty of any of the offenses listed in the charge, without analyzing the four Almanza factors in a juvenile matter) and Francis v. State , 53 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding that some harm was shown because the jury was capable of retur

2008App. 1998) (analyzing four Almanza factors and finding no harm in a less-than-unanimous-verdict murder case) with In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no. pet.) (concluding M.P. clearly suffered at minimum some harm from this jury charge since it is unclear whether the jury was unanimous in finding M.P. guilty of any of the offenses listed in the charge, without analyzing the four Almanza factors in a juvenile matter) and Francis v. State, 53 S.W.3d 5 685, 687 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding that some harm was shown because the jury was capable of retur

22
Arrington, Charlesgreen
texcrimapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See Arrington, 451 S.W.3d at 840 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . 1.

11
Green v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Green, 476 S.W.3d at 446 ; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . 9 1.

11
Vasquez v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018A. The Entire Jury Charge “The purpose of the trial judge’s jury charge is to instruct the jurors on all of the law that is applicable to the case.” Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Tex. Crim.

11
Cantu v. Peachergreen
texapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008App. 1998) (analyzing four Almanza factors and finding no harm in a less-than-unanimous-verdict murder case) with In re M.P., 126 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no. pet.) (concluding M.P. clearly suffered at minimum some harm from this jury charge since it is unclear whether the jury was unanimous in finding M.P. guilty of any of the offenses listed in the charge, without analyzing the four Almanza factors in a juvenile matter) and Francis v. State, 53 S.W.3d 5 685, 687 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding that some harm was shown because the jury was capable of retur

11
Francis v. Stategreen
texapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008App. 1998) (analyzing four Almanza factors and finding no harm in a less-than-unanimous-verdict murder case) with In re M.P. , 126 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no. pet.) (concluding M.P. clearly suffered at minimum some harm from this jury charge since it is unclear whether the jury was unanimous in finding M.P. guilty of any of the offenses listed in the charge, without analyzing the four Almanza factors in a juvenile matter) and Francis v. State , 53 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding that some harm was shown because the jury was capable of retur

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
French, Cody Darus green
texcrimapp · 2018
2 sentences

2024Id. at 235–36.

2024Id. at 235–36.

22024–2024

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 21.11 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 6.03 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.02 (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