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 2003–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Standefer v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The Standefer test has simply generated complete confusion and, thereby, the deprivation of constitutional rights. 13 In the instant case, the court of appeals quite literally “presumably” finds three of the questions defense counsel proffered in voir dire to not be improper commitment questions under Standefer. 14 However, because it is extremely difficult to discern the lower court’s quite convoluted reasoning as to why the questions do or do not meet the Standefer criteria, it is 12 Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim App. 2001). 13 See Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d at 185 (Price, 2015The Standefer test has simply generated complete confusion and, thereby, the deprivation of constitutional rights. 13 In the instant case, the court of appeals quite literally “presumably” finds three of the questions defense counsel proffered in voir dire to not be improper commitment questions under Standefer. 14 However, because it is extremely difficult to discern the lower court’s quite convoluted reasoning as to why the questions do or do not meet the Standefer criteria, it is 12 Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim App. 2001). 13 See Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d at 185 (Price, | 9 | 11 |
Barajas v. Stategreen2 sentences2015App. 1978); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 45 (Tex. Crim App. 2002) (overruling Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 1978); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 45 (Tex. Crim App. 2002) (overruling Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Vann v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). 2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). | 3 | 3 |
Cardenas v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Cardenas v. State, 325 S.W.3d 179, 184, 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (analyzing question about ability to consider minimum punishment for aggravated sexual assault of child); see also Barajas, 93 S.W.3d at 38 n. 1 ("We held in Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2001), that the parties may not ask whether venire members can consider probation under the particular facts of the case beyond the offense as charged in the indictment.”). 2011Cardenas v. State, 325 S.W.3d 179, 184, 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (analyzing question about ability to consider minimum punishment for aggravated sexual assault of child); see also Barajas, 93 S.W.3d at 38 n. 1 ("We held in Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2001), that the parties may not ask whether venire members can consider probation under the particular facts of the case beyond the offense as charged in the indictment.”). | 3 | 3 |
Lydia v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). 2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). | 3 | 3 |
Tijerina v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). 2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Vann v. State, 216 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Tijerina v. State, 202 S.W.3d 299, 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd); Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 905-06 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. refd). | 3 | 3 |
Lydia v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Id. at 500. 2013Id. at 500. | 2 | 4 |
Atkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 (distinguishing *624 Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)). 18 Therefore, it appears that Rodriguez-Flores’s questions satisfy the third prong of the Standefer test because he sought to elicit any automatic bias that the panelists might have had against the duress defense if the victim was a child, and the only fact included in the question was the victim’s status as a child. 2011See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 182 (distinguishing *624 Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)). 18 Therefore, it appears that Rodriguez-Flores’s questions satisfy the third prong of the Standefer test because he sought to elicit any automatic bias that the panelists might have had against the duress defense if the victim was a child, and the only fact included in the question was the victim’s status as a child. | 1 | 2 |
Diversified Financial Systems, Inc. v. Hill, Heard, O'Neal, Gilstrap & Goetz, P.C.green1 sentence2016Sys., Inc. v. Hill, Heard, O’Neal, Gilstrap & Goetz, P.C., 63 S.W.3d 795, 795 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Standefer v. Brewergreen1 sentence2012In the first appeal, Standefer v. Brewer, 256 S.W.3d 889, 893 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), this Court concluded that Adam’s original expert report as to Standefer was deficient, reversed the trial court’s order denying Standefer’s motion to dismiss, and remanded for the trial court to consider Brewer’s request for a 30-day extension to correct the deficient report. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Jones v. State, 223 S.W.3d 379, 382-83 (Tex. 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2015The Standefer test has simply generated complete confusion and, thereby, the deprivation of constitutional rights. 13 In the instant case, the court of appeals quite literally “presumably” finds three of the questions defense counsel proffered in voir dire to not be improper commitment questions under Standefer. 14 However, because it is extremely difficult to discern the lower court’s quite convoluted reasoning as to why the questions do or do not meet the Standefer criteria, it is 12 Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim App. 2001). 13 See Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d at 185 (Price, 2015The Standefer test has simply generated complete confusion and, thereby, the deprivation of constitutional rights. 13 In the instant case, the court of appeals quite literally “presumably” finds three of the questions defense counsel proffered in voir dire to not be improper commitment questions under Standefer. 14 However, because it is extremely difficult to discern the lower court’s quite convoluted reasoning as to why the questions do or do not meet the Standefer criteria, it is 12 Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim App. 2001). 13 See Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d at 185 (Price, | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Nunfio v. State
green
2 sentences2015App. 1978); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 45 (Tex. Crim App. 2002) (overruling Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 1978); Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 45 (Tex. Crim App. 2002) (overruling Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Garrett v. State
green
2 sentences2015It appears to be a question about mere presence. … It may, however, run afoul of the prohibition against asking how a juror will respond to the specific facts of the case at bar. … The question may inquire about venire member’s reaction to the specific facts of this case rather than his ability to follow the law, as discussed in Atkins. 16 This reasoning reflects the fundamental confusion and misunderstanding and, thereby misapplication, that plagues the Standefer standard and is exhibited by the vast majority of litigants and judges throughout this state. 17The lower court appears to honestly 2015It appears to be a question about mere presence. … It may, however, run afoul of the prohibition against asking how a juror will respond to the specific facts of the case at bar. … The question may inquire about venire member’s reaction to the specific facts of this case rather than his ability to follow the law, as discussed in Atkins. 16 This reasoning reflects the fundamental confusion and misunderstanding and, thereby misapplication, that plagues the Standefer standard and is exhibited by the vast majority of litigants and judges throughout this state. 17The lower court appears to honestly | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2007See Standefer , 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Atkins , 951 S.W.2d at 789 B 90; Lee , 176 S.W.3d at 461 . 2007See Standefer , 59 S.W.3d at 182 ; Atkins , 951 S.W.2d at 789 B 90; Lee , 176 S.W.3d at 461 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lydia v. State
green
2 sentences2003Ibid. 2003Ibid. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.