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.
112 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1915–2026 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wooten, Codiem Renoirgreen2 sentences2021Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 607 (Tex. Crim. 2018See Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 607 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 5 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to 1999See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure | 5 | 5 |
Splawn v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to 1999See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure | 5 | 5 |
Cormier v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to 1999See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure | 5 | 5 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to 1999See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure | 5 | 5 |
Almanza v. Statered2 sentences2014Appellant did not object to the instruction at trial so we review the error under the standard set forth in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2012We review whether Solis was harmed by the error under the standard set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 8 |
Ambrose, Cynthiagreen2 sentences2016See State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587, 589 (Tex.Crim.App.2016) (affirming court of appeals’s decision that assumed without deciding that jury instructions were erroneous and that then performed harm analysis); Herring v. State, 147 S.W.3d 390, 394 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (affirming court of appeals’s decision that assumed arguendo that trial court erred by refusing to exclude evidence of exact description of appellant’s prior crime during guilt-innocence and that then performed harm analysis); see also Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 607 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) ("Finding our harm analysis thus disposi 2016See State v. Ambrose, No. PD-0143-15, 2016 WL 1696455, at *1 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Luquis v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355, 368 (Tex. Crim. 2014In Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355, 368 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Potier v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1922-23 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (Sixth Amendment insures compulsory process to obtain favorable witnesses). | 3 | 3 |
Mathis v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex. Crim.App.2002). 1997App. P . 33.1. Â But Hackett had already obtained an adverse ruling on his motion to quash. Â Need there be more? Â Or is this more of a presentment requirement and because the request for continuance was not made, we have nothing to review? Â No error, no harm. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â An argument can be made for either analysis. Â For example, in cases where defendants have been denied a challenge for cause, the request for more peremptory strikes has been characterized as a part of a preservation requirement and as a part of a harm analysis. Â If used as a preservation requirement, there is no nee | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Chabotgreen2 sentences2012See Chabot , 300 S.W.3d at 772 ; Ex parte Ghahremani , 332 S.W.3d 470, 478 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Chabot, 300 S.W.3d at 772 ; Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470, 478 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Ghahremanigreen2 sentences2012See Chabot , 300 S.W.3d at 772 ; Ex parte Ghahremani , 332 S.W.3d 470, 478 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Chabot, 300 S.W.3d at 772 ; Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470, 478 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Bustamante, Victor v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Bustamante v. State, 109 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002, no pet.) (op. on remand) (trial court’s instruction “actually compounded the error as the instruction itself is another comment on the defendant’s failure to testify”). 2011See Bustamante v. State , 109 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2002, no pet.) (op. on remand) (trial court's instruction "actually compounded the error as the instruction itself is another comment on the defendant's failure to testify"). | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2010See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1922-23 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (Sixth Amendment insures compulsory process to obtain favorable witnesses). 2010See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1922-23 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (Sixth Amendment insures compulsory process to obtain favorable witnesses). | 2 | 2 |
Bluitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See id.; Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex. Crim. 2006See id .; Bluitt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Jimenez, 32 S.W.3d at 237 . 2006See Jimenez , 32 S.W.3d at 237 . | 2 | 2 |
Tong v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Accord Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 718 (Tex. Crim. 2005Accord Tong v. State , 25 S.W.3d 707, 718 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Young v. Statered2 sentences2004See Young v. State , 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. 2004See Young v. State , 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Yates v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza “egregious harm” standard to failure to 1999See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure | 2 | 2 |
Escovedo v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier v. State , 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.) (applying Almanza "egregious harm" standard to failure to define "reasonable doubt" in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State , 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying 1998See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954 (holding trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase and remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis); Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997, no pet.) (applying Al-manza “egregious harm” standard to failure to define “reasonable doubt” in instruction on burden of proof for extraneous offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Splawn v. State, 949 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.) (applying Alman | 2 | 2 |
Tareq Alkayyali v. the State of Texasgreen2 sentences2025The court of appeals addressed this error first, finding its resolution dispositive in this case. 11 Appellant contended that this error in the instruction allowed the jury to convict him of murder without requiring the jury to find that he caused Moussa’s death. 12 While the State agreed there was error in the jury charge, it argued that Appellant did not suffer egregious harm as a result. 13 11 Alkayyali v. State, 668 S.W.3d 445 , 452 n.9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2023, pet. granted). 12 Id. at 452 . 13 Id. 2025The court of appeals addressed this error first, finding its resolution dispositive in this case. 11 Appellant contended that this error in the instruction allowed the jury to convict him of murder without requiring the jury to find that he caused Moussa’s death. 12 While the State agreed there was error in the jury charge, it argued that Appellant did not suffer egregious harm as a result. 13 11 Alkayyali v. State, 668 S.W.3d 445 , 452 n.9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2023, pet. granted). 12 Id. at 452 . 13 Id. | 1 | 2 |
Bruno v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Turner v. State , No. 04-03-00436-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7587 , at *18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 25, 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (citing Bruno , 845 S.W.2d at 913). 6. 2013Turner v. State, No. 04-03-00436-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7587 , at *18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 25, 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (citing Bruno, 845 S.W.2d at 913 ). 6 See also Louis v. State, 393 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesmagreen2 sentences2011Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32 , 43–44 (Tex. 2007); State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. 2011Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 43-44 (Tex.2007); State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. | 1 | 2 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Id. 1991Harris, 790 S.W.2d 568, 585 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). | 1 | 2 |
| Cardenas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kentucky v. Stincergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tillman, Larry Joseph Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Linton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Proenza, Abraham Jacobgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rojas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bella Palma, Llc v. Mark Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vincent Depaul Stredic v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berry v. Segallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Placegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tippsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amador v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kasem v. Dion-Kindem CA2/4green | 1 | 1 |
| Skinner v. Stonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lombardo v. Huysentruytgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herring v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cockrell v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 4 | 2009–2010 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2015In a case where a timely objection would not have 3 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). - 12 - prevented the error and an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm flowing from the error, a party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial. 2015In a case where a timely objection would not have 3 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). - 12 - prevented the error and an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm flowing from the error, a party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Unkart, Rodney Gale
green
2 sentences2015Unkart, 400 S.W.3d at 99 . 2015Unkart, 400 S.W.3d at 99 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Martinez v. State
green
2 sentences2010Martinez v. State, 22 S.W.3d 504 , 507 n.7 (Tex. Crim. 2010Martinez v. State , 22 S.W.3d 504 , 507 n.7 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Griffin v. State
green
2 sentences2003Arguing that the videotaped confessions given to Texas law enforcement were fruits of the Chicago statement, and thus should not have been admitted, appellant asserts that the remaining evidence of his guilt was “tenuous.” In Griffin v. State, 765 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), this Court addressed the validity of the “cat out of the bag” theory. 2003Arguing that the videotaped confessions given to Texas law enforcement were fruits of the Chicago statement, and thus should not have been admitted, appellant asserts that the remaining evidence of his guilt was "tenuous." In Griffin v. State , 765 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Airline Motor Coaches, Inc. v. Fields
neutral
2 sentences1942It held further that the definition was not erroneous. 159 S.W.2d 187 . 1942It held further that the definition was not erroneous. 159 S. W. (2d) 187 . | 2 | 1942–1942 |
| United States v. Martin Gonzalez Munoz green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Zuckerman v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Suburban Utility Corp. v. Public Utility Commission green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Sterling v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kothe v. State green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Poindexter v. State red | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| DiGiuseppe v. Lawler green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ex Parte Cavazos green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Evans v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bryan Keith Burrell v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State Farm Lloyds v. Dora Gulley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Traylor v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Cocke v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Phillips v. Bramlett green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Pearson v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Vasquez v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Reese green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.