17 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fair v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Second, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that inclusion of an unnecessary extraneous-offense limiting instruction in a jury charge was not reversible error because it “was not harmful but beneficial to the appellant.” Fair v. State, 465 S.W.2d 753, 755 (Tex. Crim. 2016In Fair v. State, the defendant did not request an extraneous-offense limiting instruction during trial, yet he objected to the trial court’s inclusion of such an instruction in the jury charge. 465 S.W.2d 753, 755 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Delgado v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244, 249 (Tex. Crim. 2023See Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 252, 254 (holding trial court was not required to sua sponte include limiting instruction); Hammock, 46 S.W.3d at 893 (holding trial court did not err by denying defense request to include limiting instruction in jury charge). | 4 | 4 |
Ferreira v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Steggall, 2018 WL 3763747 , at *2; Miller, 2017 WL 34585 , at *4; Ferreira, 514 S.W.3d at 301–02; Esparza, 513 S.W.3d at 649 ; Sadler, 2015 WL 5136857 , at *6. 2026First, our sister court has noted the absence of cases “holding that a trial court is prohibited from including a limiting instruction in such a situation.” Ferreira v. State, 514 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. 5 ref’d); accord Yepez v. State, 696 S.W.3d 1 , 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (“Appellant has not directed us to, nor have we found, any cases holding that a trial court errs by including an extraneous-offense limiting instruction in the jury charge over a defendant’s objection in such circumstances.”). | 2 | 4 |
Hammock v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Delgado, 235 S.W.3d at 252, 254 (holding trial court was not required to sua sponte include limiting instruction); Hammock, 46 S.W.3d at 893 (holding trial court did not err by denying defense request to include limiting instruction in jury charge). 2005Hammock v. State , 46 S.W.3d 889, 893-94 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 654 (Tex. Crim. 2012Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 654 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jesus Eduardo Esparza v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Steggall, 2018 WL 3763747 , at *2; Miller, 2017 WL 34585 , at *4; Ferreira, 514 S.W.3d at 301–02; Esparza, 513 S.W.3d at 649 ; Sadler, 2015 WL 5136857 , at *6. 2023See generally Ferreira, 514 S.W.3d at 301 (“But appellant has not cited, nor have we found, any cases holding that a trial court is prohibited from including a limiting instruction in such a situation.”); Esparza, 513 S.W.3d at 648 (“Delgado does not say, and it does not follow, that trial courts are prohibited from including an extraneous offense instruction raised by the evidence if the defendant objects. | 1 | 2 |
Kirsch, Scott Alangreen1 sentence2026A. Standard of Review We must review “all alleged jury-charge error . . . regardless of preservation in the trial court.” Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cardenas v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Cardenas, 30 S.W.3d at 393 ; Thomas, 2022 WL 3048223 , at *9. 17 E. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 . | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2018See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064–65; Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Texas courts 12 have consistently held that the decision whether to request a limiting instruction may be a matter of trial strategy.”); Agbogwe, 414 S.W.3d at 837 (“The failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction is not, by itself, ineffective assistance.”); Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (“Absent something in the record explaining why counsel did not request a rule 105(a) limiting instruction | 1 | 1 |
Howland v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064–65; Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Texas courts 12 have consistently held that the decision whether to request a limiting instruction may be a matter of trial strategy.”); Agbogwe, 414 S.W.3d at 837 (“The failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction is not, by itself, ineffective assistance.”); Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (“Absent something in the record explaining why counsel did not request a rule 105(a) limiting instruction | 1 | 1 |
Sunday Agbogwe v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064–65; Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Texas courts 12 have consistently held that the decision whether to request a limiting instruction may be a matter of trial strategy.”); Agbogwe, 414 S.W.3d at 837 (“The failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction is not, by itself, ineffective assistance.”); Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (“Absent something in the record explaining why counsel did not request a rule 105(a) limiting instruction | 1 | 1 |
Xavier Shrod Dukes v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064–65; Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Texas courts 12 have consistently held that the decision whether to request a limiting instruction may be a matter of trial strategy.”); Agbogwe, 414 S.W.3d at 837 (“The failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction is not, by itself, ineffective assistance.”); Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (“Absent something in the record explaining why counsel did not request a rule 105(a) limiting instruction | 1 | 1 |
Blackwell v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hutch v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See id. | 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
1 sentence2023Although Appellant identifies the applicable standard of review under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. 1985), he does not provide a meaningful, substantive analysis of the issue. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Howland v. State
green
1 sentence2018See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064–65; Dukes v. State, 486 S.W.3d 170, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Texas courts 12 have consistently held that the decision whether to request a limiting instruction may be a matter of trial strategy.”); Agbogwe, 414 S.W.3d at 837 (“The failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction is not, by itself, ineffective assistance.”); Howland v. State, 966 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (“Absent something in the record explaining why counsel did not request a rule 105(a) limiting instruction | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Barrios v. State
green
1 sentence2011Under these circumstances, we are convinced that the trial court’s failure to include an extraneous-offense limiting instruction in appellant’s firearm-offense jury charge did not “injure the rights of the defendant.” See Barrios , 283 S.W.3d at 350 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.