much stricter harm analysis (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

much stricter harm analysis in Texas

19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 11 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Clark v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2012 · cited in 16 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026
2 sentences

2026The need to inform the court of the basis for an objection is greater for constitutional complaints than for nonconstitutional ones “because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal.” Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339-40 (Tex. Crim.

2026The need to inform the court of the basis for an objection is greater for constitutional complaints than for nonconstitutional ones “because constitutional error 9 is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal.” Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 340 (Tex. Crim.

1216
Davis v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015App. 2012) (“[T]he trial court should know when it is being asked to make a constitutional ruling because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal.”); see also Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 347 (Tex. Crim.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Reyna v. State green
texcrimapp · 2005
2 sentences

2018The trial court considered Appellant's proffer under rule 412, not the constitution; thus, Appellant has not preserved his constitutional complaint for our review. 9 See Reyna , 168 S.W.3d at 179-80 ; see also Clark , 365 S.W.3d at 340 ("[T]he trial court should know when it is being asked to make a constitutional ruling because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal."). *370 3.

2013“Whether a party’s particular complaint is preserved depends on whether the complaint on appeal comports with the complaint made at trial.” Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 464 (citing Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177 ).

22013–2018
Estelle v. Williams green
scotus · 1976
1 sentence

2023The cases show, for example, that it is not an uncommon defense tactic to produce the defendant in jail clothes in the hope of eliciting sympathy from the jury.” Estelle, 425 U.S. at 507–08 (citations omitted). –7– constitutional ruling because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal”).

12023–2023
Davis v. State green
texapp · 2008
1 sentence

2021We also believe “the trial court should know when it is being asked to make a constitutional ruling because constitutional error is subject to a much stricter harm analysis on appeal.” Id. at 340 (citing to TEX.

12021–2021
Pena v. State green
texcrimapp · 2009
1 sentence

2013“Whether a party’s particular complaint is preserved depends on whether the complaint on appeal comports with the complaint made at trial.” Pena, 285 S.W.3d at 464 (citing Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177 ).

12013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.01 (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