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.
17 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1954–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2020If there is error and the defendant objected to the error at trial, we must reverse “if the error ‘is calculated to injure the rights of the defendant,’ which we have defined to mean that there is ‘some harm.’” Barrios, 283 S.W.3d at 350 (quoting Almanza v. 18 State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2020If there is error and the defendant objected to the error at trial, we must reverse “if the error ‘is calculated to injure the rights of the defendant,’ which we have defined to mean that there is ‘some harm.’” Barrios, 283 S.W.3d at 350 (quoting Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 8 |
Reeves, Gary Patrickgreen2 sentences2023Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. 2016Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Barrios v. Stategreen2 sentences2024If, as in this case, the defendant objected to the error at trial, we reverse if the error “is calculated to injure the rights of the defendant,” which means there was “some harm.” Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim. 2020If there is error and the defendant objected to the error at trial, we must reverse “if the error ‘is calculated to injure the rights of the defendant,’ which we have defined to mean that there is ‘some harm.’” Barrios, 283 S.W.3d at 350 (quoting Almanza v. 18 State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
Kuenstler v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See id. at 369-70 . 8 conditions of community supervision or copy of motion to revoke community supervision listing conditions that he allegedly violated because he did not alert “the trial court by complaining at any point in the proceedings”); see also Sneed v. State, 493 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2016, no pet.) (concluding that defendant failed to preserve complaint “that her due process and due course of law rights were violated” because defendant made no objection at revocation hearing or in motion for new trial); Jones v. State, 112 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi | 1 | 1 |
Sneed v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See id. at 369-70 . 8 conditions of community supervision or copy of motion to revoke community supervision listing conditions that he allegedly violated because he did not alert “the trial court by complaining at any point in the proceedings”); see also Sneed v. State, 493 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2016, no pet.) (concluding that defendant failed to preserve complaint “that her due process and due course of law rights were violated” because defendant made no objection at revocation hearing or in motion for new trial); Jones v. State, 112 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See id. at 369-70 . 8 conditions of community supervision or copy of motion to revoke community supervision listing conditions that he allegedly violated because he did not alert “the trial court by complaining at any point in the proceedings”); see also Sneed v. State, 493 S.W.3d 218, 221 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2016, no pet.) (concluding that defendant failed to preserve complaint “that her due process and due course of law rights were violated” because defendant made no objection at revocation hearing or in motion for new trial); Jones v. State, 112 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi | 1 | 1 |
Cortez, Damien Hernandezgreen1 sentence2023We review claims of charge error using a two-step process. 36 When evaluating charge error, we must first determine whether an error occurred. 37 If an error occurred, we then apply the appropriate harm analysis depending on whether the error was properly preserved by the defendant in the trial. 38 And determining whether harm resulted from an error in a charge is measured by a “some harm” standard if the defendant objected to the error in the court below, but by another standard known as “egregious harm” if the defendant didn’t object. 39 Coleman acknowledges he didn’t preserve the error that | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen1 sentence2019With respect to harm, if there was error in the charge and the defendant objected to the error at trial, “reversal is required if the error ‘is calculated to injure the rights of the defendant.’” Ferguson v. State, 335 S.W.3d 676, 684-85 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (quoting Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Mendez v. State
green
1 sentence2020Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 . 7 On the other hand, the law does not impose on a trial court a duty to sua sponte instruct a jury on defensive issues. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sakil v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 25–26. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Casares v. State
green
2 sentences1989I must ask the following question: Isn’t the majority opinion in conflict with what this Court recently stated and held in Casares v. State, 768 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App., 1989)? 1989I must ask the following question: Isn't the majority opinion in conflict with what this Court recently stated and held in Casares v. State, 768 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ex Parte Renier
green
2 sentences1989However, given what this Court stated and held in the above cases, what does amaze and shock me is why it takes this Court almost four complete legal size pages to tell an incarcerated inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, where most of our post-conviction applications for the writ of habeas corpus come from, also see Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), who wish to collaterally attack a trial court’s judgment of conviction, what can be stated in one short sentence, namely: No kind of error is subject to collateral attack unless the defendant objected to such error at hi 1989However, given what this Court stated and held in the above cases, what does amaze and shock me is why it takes this Court almost four complete legal size pages to tell an incarcerated inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, where most of our post-conviction applications for the writ of habeas corpus come from, also see Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Cr.App.1987), who wish to collaterally attack a trial court's judgment of conviction, what can be stated in one short sentence, namely: No kind of error is subject to collateral attack unless the defendant objected to such error at h | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder
green
2 sentences1954In the case of Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1944, 182 S. W.2d 857, 861 , affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1945 in 143 Tex. 412 , 186 S.W.2d 233, 236 , the defendant objected to an instruction which the trial court gave to the jury upon what elements they might consider in arriving at the amount of damages to the plaintiffs because of the death of a minor child. 1954In the case of Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1944, 182 S. W.2d 857, 861 , affirmed by the Supreme ■Court in 1945 in 143 Tex. 412 , 186 S.W.2d 233, 236 , the defendant objected to an instruction which the trial court gave to the jury upon what elements they might consider in arriving at the amount of damages ■to the plaintiffs because of the death of a minor child. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Russell Construction Co. v. Ponder
green
2 sentences1954In the case of Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1944, 182 S. W.2d 857, 861 , affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1945 in 143 Tex. 412 , 186 S.W.2d 233, 236 , the defendant objected to an instruction which the trial court gave to the jury upon what elements they might consider in arriving at the amount of damages to the plaintiffs because of the death of a minor child. 1954In the case of Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1944, 182 S. W.2d 857, 861 , affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1945 in 143 Tex. 412 , 186 S.W.2d 233, 236 , the defendant objected to an instruction which the trial court gave to the jury upon what elements they might consider in arriving at the amount of damages to the plaintiffs because of the death of a minor child. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.