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 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eckert v. Stateyellow2 sentences2011An instruction to disregard at the deliberations stage of a trial is “ ‘similar to the corrective action of an instruction to disregard evidence improperly introduced at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Eckert v. State, 623 S.W.2d 359, 364 (Tex.Crim.App.1981), oveiruled on other grounds by Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)). 2010An instruction to disregard at the deliberations stage of a trial is "'similar to the corrective action of an instruction to disregard evidence improperly introduced at trial.'" Id. (quoting Eckert v. State , 623 S.W.2d 359, 364 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Bustamante v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“In determining whether the evidence was ‘received’ by the jury, a court may consider how extensively the evidence was considered by the jury and whether the jury was given an instruction to disregard.” Id. 2020To determine whether the jury received the other evidence, “a court may consider how extensively the evidence was examined by the jury and whether the jury was given an instruction to disregard.” Id. | 1 | 10 |
Beasley v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See id. at 453–54. | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See also Moss v. State, 632 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Fairfield v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), and cases cited therein. 1983Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morin v. State
green
2 sentences2016We stated that the guilt- phase charge in that case “show[ed] compliance with Art. 36.14 in that the jury was given instruction on the law, applicable to the case, without comment on the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 268–69. 7 In pertinent part, Article 36.14 requires the trial court to deliver a written charge to the jury that “distinctly set[s] forth the law applicable to the case” without “expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence . . ..” 8 Appellant’s case differs from Morin in that appellant’s trial was a unitary proceeding in which the jury received “a combination instruc 2015The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this language showed “compliance with Art. 36.14, in that the jury was given instruction on the law, applicable to the case, without comment on the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 268 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Holland v. State
green
1 sentence2016We stated that the guilt- phase charge in that case “show[ed] compliance with Art. 36.14 in that the jury was given instruction on the law, applicable to the case, without comment on the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 268–69. 7 In pertinent part, Article 36.14 requires the trial court to deliver a written charge to the jury that “distinctly set[s] forth the law applicable to the case” without “expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence . . ..” 8 Appellant’s case differs from Morin in that appellant’s trial was a unitary proceeding in which the jury received “a combination instruc | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stahl v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 826-30 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Reed v. State
green
1 sentence2011An instruction to disregard at the deliberations stage of a trial is “ ‘similar to the corrective action of an instruction to disregard evidence improperly introduced at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Eckert v. State, 623 S.W.2d 359, 364 (Tex.Crim.App.1981), oveiruled on other grounds by Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Woodall v. State
green
1 sentence2010See Bustamante , 106 S.W.3d at 743 (“In determining whether evidence was ‘received’ by the jury, a court may consider how extensively the evidence was examined by the jury and whether the jury was given an instruction to disregard.”); Woodall , 77 S.W.3d at 391–94 (affirming conviction despite six jurors testifying that they viewed photographs not in evidence because all jurors testified that they did not consider the photographs in reaching the verdict). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Montgomery v. State
neutral
2 sentences1983In his fourth and fifth grounds of error appellant contends that the trial court erred (1) “by incorporating a charge on parties within appellant’s circumstantial evidence charge”, and (2) “by instructing the jury relative to circumstantial evidence that the accused could be found guilty without finding that he alone, and no other person committed the offense charged.” The jury was given a standard charge on circumstantial evidence, except they were told that, in order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, that the facts and circumstances, taken together, had to produce “a reason 1983In his fourth and fifth grounds of error appellant contends that the trial court erred (1) “by incorporating a charge on parties within appellant’s circumstantial evidence charge”, and (2) “by instructing the jury relative to circumstantial evidence that the accused could be found guilty without finding that he alone, and no other person committed the offense charged.” The jury was given a standard charge on circumstantial evidence, except they were told that, in order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, that the facts and circumstances, taken together, had to produce “a reason | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.