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.
15 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2014–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Easley, Damian Demitriusgreen2 sentences2018App. 2014). 25 Easley, 424 S.W.3d at 541 (“While erroneous, the judge’s refusal to allow Easley’s counsel to compare other burdens of proof did not mean he was foreclosed from explaining the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and exploring the venire members’ understanding and beliefs of reasonable doubt by other methods.”) Jacobs — 10 magnitude” or was a “non-constitutional error.” 26 According to our decision in Easley, a trial judge’s erroneous refusal to allow defense counsel to ask proper questions of veniremembers is generally considered non- constitutional.27 However, we acknowledged 2016We find the reasoning set forth in Easley applicable to this case because Tristani’s inability to ask one question regarding a specific verdict reached by a venire member in prior jury service 10 is not “so substantial as to warrant labeling the error as constitutional error.” See id. | 5 | 14 |
Quezada v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. 2014) (holding that, while the error in the case before it constituted non-constitutional error, “[t]here may be instances when a judge’s limitation on voir dire is so substantial as to warrant labeling the error as constitutional error”); Quezada v. State, 553 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2018, no pet.) (“The trial judge denied [d]efense [c]ounsel the ability to discover if any of the venire could not consider probation, and thus denied him the ability to exercise his strikes intelligently. . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2015We In Easley, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that disagree. erroneously limiting a party’s voir dire examination is non-constitutional unless the error “is so substantial as to *3 For preservation of error over the admission of evidence, warrant labeling the error as constitutional error.” Id. at 541 . there is a general rule that the party must object each time the Here, the restrictions involved the form of questions for one evidence is admitted.Kelly v. State, 321 S.W.3d 583 , 598 general topic: the right to remain silent. 2015We In Easley, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that disagree. erroneously limiting a party’s voir dire examination is non-constitutional unless the error “is so substantial as to *3 For preservation of error over the admission of evidence, warrant labeling the error as constitutional error.” Id. at 541 . there is a general rule that the party must object each time the Here, the restrictions involved the form of questions for one evidence is admitted.Kelly v. State, 321 S.W.3d 583 , 598 general topic: the right to remain silent. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
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.