109 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2026 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medina v. Stategreen2 sentences2026The Charge as a Whole The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, “[w]here the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. 2026The Court of Criminal Appeals has held, and we agree, that “[w]here the [charge’s] application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. | 75 | 78 |
Plata v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000); Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 , 302–03 (Tex. Crim. 2015App. 1999) ("Where the application para graph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious."); Planta v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302-03 (Tex. Crim. | 21 | 23 |
Malik v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 1996) (“The inclusion of a merely superfluous abstraction . . . never produces reversible error in the court’s charge because it has no effect on the jury’s ability fairly and accurately to implement the commands of the application paragraph or paragraphs.”), murder instruction in the abstract portion of the charge was erroneous because we conclude that even assuming it was, Quigley was not egregiously harmed.”). 7 overruled on other grounds by Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. 2007Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 683, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious); Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds, Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (holding that reversal is required when an accurate definition in the abstract definition is necessary to implement the application paragraph); Williams v. State, 226 S.W.3d 611 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], 2007, no pet. h.) (holding that when the application paragraph | 9 | 10 |
Bill Boyd Kuhn v. Stategreen2 sentences2026App. 1999); see also Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 529 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have repeatedly held that where the application paragraph of the charge correctly instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case, this mitigates against a finding that any error in the abstract portion of the charge was egregious.”). 2 We note that, while Appellant concedes that applying the Almanza factors is the proper analysis to employ because of the lack of any charge objection made at trial, he does not separately address them or to what extent, if any, these factors would sup 2022App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 529 (Tex. App.— Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have repeatedly held that where the application paragraph of the charge correctly instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case, this mitigates against a finding that any error in the abstract portion of the charge was egregious.”). | 8 | 9 |
Crenshaw, Bradley Keltongreen2 sentences2023App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”).2 2 See also Crenshaw, 378 S.W.3d at 466 (“Generally, reversible error occurs in the giving of an abstract instruction only when the instruction is an incorrect or misleading statement of a law that the jury must understand in order to implement the commands of the application paragraph.”); Farrar v. State, No. 01-18-01043- CR, 2020 WL 2069152 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“When a court’s 2015Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); see also Crenshaw, 378 S.W.3d at 464-66 (“Generally, reversible error occurs in the giving of an abstract instruction only when the instruction is an incorrect or misleading statement of a law that the jury must understand in order to implement.the commands of the application paragraph.”). | 5 | 5 |
Trimble v. Itzgreen2 sentences2022App. 1999) (“Where the Harris v. State Page 6 application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 493 (Tex. Crim. 2018App. 10 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); see also Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 493 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Hughes, 897 S.W.2d at 296-97 (finding no harm, much less egregious harm, from inclusion of superfluous conduct element in mens rea definition when application paragraph pointed the jury to appropriate conduct at issue); Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)(en banc)(“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”). 2019App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 296 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 4 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2020App. 1999); see Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 367 (Tex. Crim. 2019App. 1999); see Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 367 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Gilbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 1999); Gilbert v. State, 494 S.W.3d 758, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd). 2019“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Gilbert v. State, 494 S.W.3d 758, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Grady v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 1999); see Grady v. State, 614 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. Crim. 2013App. 1999); see Grady v. State, 614 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”) 93 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1980). 94 Id. at 687-88 . 95 Id. at 689 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”) 93 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1980). 94 Id. at 687-88 . 95 Id. at 689 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Williams v. State, 226 S.W.3d 611 , 618–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (defendant not egregiously harmed when abstract paragraph of charge included superfluous definition of recklessly). 2010App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); see also Williams v. State, 226 S.W.3d 611, 618 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“Appellant does not direct us to any evidence that the jury did not follow the instructions in the application paragraph, and our review of the record reveals none.”). | 1 | 4 |
Michael James Reed, Jr. v. Stategreen1 sentence2025App. 1999); Reed v. State, 421 S.W.3d 24, 30 (Tex. App.— Waco 2013, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Zuliani v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See id. 23 Additionally, where, as here, “the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Martinez v. State, 924 S.W.2d 693, 699 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson, Leo Demorygreen1 sentence2022App. 1999); see also Robinson, 466 S.W.3d at 172 . | 1 | 1 |
Cesar Gomez v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Id.; see Gomez, 459 S.W.3d at 661 . | 1 | 1 |
James Tyrone Riggs v. Stategreen1 sentence2019App. 1999) (en banc)); Riggs v. State, 482 S.W.3d 270, 276 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Bazanes v. Stategreen1 sentence2017App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000); Bazanes v. State, 310 S.W.3d 32, 39 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
David Abran Anaya v. Stategreen1 sentence2016App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000); Anaya v. State, 381 S.W.3d 660, 666 (Tex. App.––Amarillo 2012, pet. ref’d) (same); see also Urquiza v. State, No. 08-08-00016-CR, 2010 WL 1230664 , at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 31, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same); Coleman v. State, No. 08-05-00258-CR, 2007 WL 853116 , at *4 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 22, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2009“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina , 7 S.W.3d at 640 ; see also Davis , 967 S.W.2d at 479 ; Jones , 951 S.W.2d at 525 . | 1 | 1 |
Navarro v. Stategreen1 sentence2008App. 1999); see also Navarro v. State, 863 S.W.2d 191, 196 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993) (determining that a correctly worded application paragraph limited -8- No. 04-07-00775-CR the potentially overly broad culpable mental states definitions and made “the disputed definitional language . . . irrelevant”), pet. ref’d, 891 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Navarro v. Stategreen1 sentence2008App. 1999); see also Navarro v. State, 863 S.W.2d 191, 196 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993) (determining that a correctly worded application paragraph limited -8- No. 04-07-00775-CR the potentially overly broad culpable mental states definitions and made “the disputed definitional language . . . irrelevant”), pet. ref’d, 891 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 683, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious); Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds, Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (holding that reversal is required when an accurate definition in the abstract definition is necessary to implement the application paragraph); Williams v. State, 226 S.W.3d 611 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], 2007, no pet. h.) (holding that when the application paragraph | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Hughes, 897 S.W.2d at 296-97 (finding no harm, much less egregious harm, from inclusion of superfluous conduct element in mens rea definition when application paragraph pointed the jury to appropriate conduct at issue); Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)(en banc)(“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”). 2019App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”); Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 296 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cowans v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2018App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000); Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 , 302–03 (Tex. Crim. 2017App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 (2000); Bazanes v. State, 310 S.W.3d 32, 39 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d). | 12 | 2002–2018 |
Medina v. Texas
green
2 sentences2010“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). 2002Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633,640 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). | 5 | 2002–2010 |
Almanza v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 1999) (despite incorrect definition of “knowingly” in abstract instruction, application paragraph correctly instructed jury to find defendant guilty of murder only if found he “intentionally or knowingly caused the 9 One could easily conclude that failure to include, in the abstract portion, digital penetration as a way of committing the offense could not harm, but only benefit, a defendant charged with sexual assault by digital penetration. 6 death”). 10 Regardless of whether the incomplete abstract paragraph constituted jury-charge error, Craver cannot show egregious harm. “[T]he actual | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Dinkins v. State
green
2 sentences2019App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not 2 Appellant attempts to distinguish Medina and Patrick by arguing that they do not control the outcome in her appeal because they both involve murder, which, in appellant’s view, “is a simply stated offense.” Appellant continues that the principle stated in Medina and Patrick does not apply because “terroristic threat is a more complex offense involving numerous elements.” Appellant does not, however, cite any authority for the proposition that an egregious harm analysis is re 2019App. 1999) (“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not 2 Appellant attempts to distinguish Medina and Patrick by arguing that they do not control the outcome in her appeal because they both involve murder, which, in appellant’s view, “is a simply stated offense.” Appellant continues that the principle stated in Medina and Patrick does not apply because “terroristic threat is a more complex offense involving numerous elements.” Appellant does not, however, cite any authority for the proposition that an egregious harm analysis is re | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2009“Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina , 7 S.W.3d at 640 ; see also Davis , 967 S.W.2d at 479 ; Jones , 951 S.W.2d at 525 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.