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 1886–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Vasquez, 919 S.W.2d at 435 . 2003See id. | 3 | 3 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). 1986See also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Stiles v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). 1986Article 36.15, V.A.C.C.P., however, does not require precise wording in the requested instruction: “The defendant may, by a special requested instruction, call the trial court’s attention to error in the charge, as well as omissions therefrom, and no other exception or objection ... shall be necessary....” The requested charge must only be “sufficient to call the trial court’s attention to the omission in the court’s charge.” Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). | 2 | 2 |
Peterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014App. 2013) (“if the charge contains error and that error has been properly preserved by an objection or request for instruction . . . .”); Peterson v. State, 508 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cornet v. Stategreen1 sentence2014CHASE — 10 The language in Article 36.14 broadly provides that a specific objection will preserve error with respect to any sort of error or omission in the charge: Said objections may embody errors claimed to have been committed in the charge, as well as errors claimed to have been committed by omissions therefrom or in failing to charge upon issues arising from the facts, and in no event shall it be necessary for the defendant or his counsel to present special requested charges to preserve or maintain any error assigned to the charge, as herein provided.31 Similarly, Article 36.15 broadly pr | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Ussery v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Ussery v. State, 651 S.W.2d 767, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. arts. 36.14, 36.15 (Vernon Supp.1993). 1993Ussery v. State, 651 S.W.2d 767, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. arts. 36.14, 36.15 (Vernon Supp.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Crouchette v. Stategreen1 sentence1944See Crouchett v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. | 1 | 1 |
Emerson v. Stategreen1 sentence1941See Emerson v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Stategreen1 sentence1940See also Russell v. State, 228 S. W. 948 ; Perkins v. State, 46 S. W. (2d) 672 ; White v. State, 95 S. W. (2d) 429 .) Bill of exception No. Two complains of the action of the court in refusing to submit the defendant’s special requested instruction No. Eleven which is designed to instruct the jury as a general proposition that whoever, in the performance of *97 a lawful act, shall by negligence and carelessness cause the death of another, they shall be guilty of negligent homicide of the first degree. | 1 | 1 |
Decker v. Stategreen1 sentence1909See Decker v. State, 39 Texas Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences2015“The defendant may, by a special requested instruction, call the trial court's attention to error in the charge, as well as omissions therefrom, and no other exception or objection to the court's charge shall be necessary to preserve any error reflected by any special requested instruction which the trial court refuses.” Id. 2015“When the defendant has leveled objections to the charge or has requested instructions or both, and the court thereafter modifies his charge and rewrites the same and in so doing does not respond to objections or 16 requested charges, or any of them, then the objections or requested charges shall not be deemed to have been waived by the party making or requesting the same, but shall be deemed to continue to have been urged by the party making or requesting the same unless the contrary is shown by the record; no exception by the defendant to the action of the court shall be necessary or require | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ramos v. State
green
2 sentences1994Id. art. 36.15. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜: ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ In the present case, Bell submitted “requested instructions” in writing to the trial court. 1994Id. art. 36.15. * * * * * * In the present case, Bell submitted "requested instructions" in writing to the trial court. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Allgood v. State
green
2 sentences1980In Allgood v. State, 141 Tex.Cr. 327 , 148 S.W.2d 433 this Court stated that when the defendant's requested charge sufficiently presents the error complained of to the trial court, it is not necessary to renew the complaint in the motion for appellate review. 1980In Allgood v. State, 141 Tex.Cr. 327 , 148 S.W.2d 433 this Court stated that when the defendant's requested charge sufficiently presents the error complained of to the trial court, it is not necessary to renew the complaint in the motion for appellate review. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Petty v. State
green
2 sentences1974While the charge might have been more definitive, 6 we hold that as in Petty v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 185 , 70 S.W.2d 718 (1934), the special requested charge was adequate to call the court’s attention to the omission of a charge on defense of habitation. 1974While the charge might have been more definitive, 6 we hold that as in Petty v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 185 , 70 S.W.2d 718 (1934), the special requested charge was adequate to call the court’s attention to the omission of a charge on defense of habitation. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Rodriguez v. State
neutral
2 sentences1960Art. 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rodriguez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 332 , 285 S.W.2d 757 ; Barefield v. State, Tex.Cr. 1960Art. 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Rodriguez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 332 , 285 S.W.2d 757 ; Barefield v. State, Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Perkins v. State
green
1 sentence1940See also Russell v. State, 228 S. W. 948 ; Perkins v. State, 46 S. W. (2d) 672 ; White v. State, 95 S. W. (2d) 429 .) Bill of exception No. Two complains of the action of the court in refusing to submit the defendant’s special requested instruction No. Eleven which is designed to instruct the jury as a general proposition that whoever, in the performance of *97 a lawful act, shall by negligence and carelessness cause the death of another, they shall be guilty of negligent homicide of the first degree. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Jim White v. State
green
1 sentence1940See also Russell v. State, 228 S. W. 948 ; Perkins v. State, 46 S. W. (2d) 672 ; White v. State, 95 S. W. (2d) 429 .) Bill of exception No. Two complains of the action of the court in refusing to submit the defendant’s special requested instruction No. Eleven which is designed to instruct the jury as a general proposition that whoever, in the performance of *97 a lawful act, shall by negligence and carelessness cause the death of another, they shall be guilty of negligent homicide of the first degree. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1922Clark v. State, 237 S. W. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1906Lee v. State, 72 S. W. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1886On the contrary, theft, or “a fraudulent taking of the property of another, embraces the idea that the taker knew that it was not his own, and also that it was done to deprive the true owner of it ” (Smith v. The State, 42 Texas, 444 ), whether he knew who the true owner was, or not. | 1 | 1886–1886 |
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.