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.
18 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Forte v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a-reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10% alcohol concentration in his body at the time of the offense. 707 S.W.2d at 94-95 (emphasis in original); see also Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (quoting same language from Forte). 2005Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10% alcohol concentration in his body at the time of the offense. 707 S.W.2d at 94-95 (emphasis in original). | 11 | 16 |
State v. Mechlergreen2 sentences2010Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10 % alcohol concentration in his 21 Id. at 440 ; see also id. at 449 (Cochran, J., concurring) (noting that the relative probative value of the test depends primarily upon “(1) the degree to which the test result exceeds the legal limit of 0.08% and (2) the amount of time elapsed between driving and the taking of the test. 2010Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10 % alcohol concentration in his 21 Id. at 440 ; see also id. at 449 (Cochran, J., concurring) (noting that the relative probative value of the test depends primarily upon “(1) the degree to which the test result exceeds the legal limit of 0.08% and (2) the amount of time elapsed between driving and the taking of the test. | 1 | 1 |
Bagheri v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a-reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10% alcohol concentration in his body at the time of the offense. 707 S.W.2d at 94-95 (emphasis in original); see also Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (quoting same language from Forte). | 1 | 1 |
Owen v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Owen v. State , 905 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, pet. ref’d ) (citing Forte v. State , 707 S.W.2d 89, 93 (Tex. Crim . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Yargergreen2 sentences1999Zioze, Comment, Trier of Fact May Infer Defendant’s Blood Alcohol Concentration at Time of Driving from Results of Subsequent Breathalyzer Test, 28 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 465, 467-68 (1994) (majority of jurisdictions, by statute or case law, permit a fact finder to infer a 0.10 or more alcohol concentration at the time of the stop from a breath test indicating an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.10 within one, two, three, or even four hours after the stop); id. at 468 n. 17 (citing cases); cf. Commonwealth v. Yarger, 538 Pa. 329 , 648 A.2d 529, 531-32 (1994) (blood alcohol test result of 0.18% p 1999Zioze, Comment, Trier of Fact May Infer Defendant’s Blood Alcohol Concentration at Time of Driving from Results of Subsequent Breathalyzer Test, 28 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 465, 467-68 (1994) (majority of jurisdictions, by statute or case law, permit a fact finder to infer a 0.10 or more alcohol concentration at the time of the stop from a breath test indicating an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.10 within one, two, three, or even four hours after the stop); id. at 468 n. 17 (citing cases); cf. Commonwealth v. Yarger, 538 Pa. 329 , 648 A.2d 529, 531-32 (1994) (blood alcohol test result of 0.18% p | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gigliobianco v. State
green
1 sentence2010The higher the test result and the shorter the time between driving and testing, the more likely the logical inference is that the defendant had a BAC level at or above 0.08% at the time of driving.”). 22 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McCafferty v. State
green
1 sentence1994In McCafferty v. State, 748 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet), cited by appellant, the defendant was the driver of a vehicle that was in a single car accident around 2:30 a.m. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1965Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 , by the Supreme Court of the United States, is relied upon in support of her contention. 1965Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 , by the Supreme Court of the United States, is relied upon in support of her contention. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.
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.