109 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1915–2026 12 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 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Huizar , 966 S.W.2d at 710 (Duncan, J., dissenting); see also Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis regarding trial court's refusal of appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza 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 Almanz 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 |
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 1999See Huizar , 966 S.W.2d at 710 (Duncan, J., dissenting); see also Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis regarding trial court's refusal of appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza 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 Almanz | 5 | 5 |
Splawn v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Huizar , 966 S.W.2d at 710 (Duncan, J., dissenting); see also Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis regarding trial court's refusal of appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza 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 Almanz 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 Huizar , 966 S.W.2d at 710 (Duncan, J., dissenting); see also Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954 (remanding to court of appeals to conduct Almanza harm analysis regarding trial court's refusal of appellant's request for instruction on burden of proof for extraneous-offense evidence admitted during punishment phase); Cormier , 955 S.W.2d at 164 (applying Almanza 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 Almanz 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. Stategreen2 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, 590, 599 (Tex. Crim. 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 |
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 |
Potier v. Stategreen2 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. | 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. Stategreen2 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 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 to | 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 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 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 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 | 2 | 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 See also Louis v. State, 393 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Tex. Crim. 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. | 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. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Linton v. Stategreen1 sentence2025As with some other federal due-process protections, an analysis of prejudice is subsumed within the error analysis.3 See, e.g., Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 747 (1987) (holding defendant did not show violation of due-process right to be present at hearing because record did not show prejudice from absence); Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 493, 509 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Tillman, Larry Joseph Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kentucky v. Stincergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rojas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amador v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berry v. Segallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tippsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Placegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herring v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lombardo v. Huysentruytgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skinner v. Stonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Crestwood Cove Apartments Business Trust v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kasem v. Dion-Kindem CA2/4green | 1 | 1 |
| Blackman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herron v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Igo v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Castleberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Louis, Cory Dongreen | 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 |
Hicks v. State
green
2 sentences2012The State’s third ground, which we address first because it pertains to the law that should be applied to the error analysis, asks, “May an appellate court use the Hicks rule to evaluate whether a ‘manner and means unknown to the grand jury’ theory was properly submitted to the jury and, if so, has the Thirteenth Court of Appeals applied the rule correctly?” See *771 Hicks, 860 S.W.2d at 424 . 2012The State's third ground, which we address first because it pertains to the law that should be applied to the error analysis, asks, "May an appellate court use the Hicks rule to evaluate whether a 'manner and means unknown to the grand jury' theory was properly submitted to the jury and, if so, has the Thirteenth Court of Appeals applied the rule correctly?" See Hicks , 860 S.W.2d at 424 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
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 |
| Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Martin Gonzalez Munoz green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Proenza, Abraham Jacob green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Zuckerman v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Sterling v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Suburban Utility Corp. v. Public Utility Commission green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kothe v. State green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Raw Hide Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Maxus Exploration Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| DiGiuseppe v. Lawler green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bryan Keith Burrell v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State Farm Lloyds v. Dora Gulley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Poindexter v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Ex Parte Cavazos green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Evans v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Cocke v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Traylor v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Vasquez v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Phillips v. Bramlett green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Pearson v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Franklin v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Reese green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Tuan Anh Dang v. State 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.