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 2 courts 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barley v. Stategreen2 sentences2008As we stated in Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27, 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), “[s]ug-gestiveness may be created by the manner in which the pre-trial identification procedure is conducted, for example by police ... suggesting that a suspect is included in the photo array.” The record from the suppression hearing reflects that appellant was not a suspect when Detective Leonard began showing pictures to appellant. 2008As we stated in Barley v. State , 906 S.W.2d 27, 33 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), "[s]uggestiveness may be created by the manner in which the pre-trial identification procedure is conducted, for example by police . . . suggesting that a suspect is included in the photo array." The record from the suppression hearing reflects that appellant was not a suspect when Detective Leonard began showing pictures to appellant. | 3 | 3 |
Buchanan v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) ("When the objection is not specific, and the legal basis is not obvious, it does not serve the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule for an appellate court to reach the merits of a forfeitable issue that is essentially raised for the first time on appeal.") (emphasis in original). [33] Compare Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (defendant's warned statement inadmissible because "the unwarned and warned statements in this case were given during a nearly undifferentiated single event, taking place in the sam 2008See Buchanan v. State , 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006) ("When the objection is not specific, and the legal basis is not obvious, it does not serve the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule for an appellate court to reach the merits of a forfeitable issue that is essentially raised for the first time on appeal.") (emphasis in original). 33. | 3 | 3 |
Hubert v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Hubert, 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell, 720 S.W.2d at 528 . 2011See Hubert , 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock , 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell , 720 S.W.2d at 528 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Matlockgreen2 sentences2011See Hubert , 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock , 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell , 720 S.W.2d at 528 . 2011See Hubert , 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock , 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell , 720 S.W.2d at 528 . | 2 | 2 |
Dowthitt v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Dowthitt, 931 S.W.2d at 255 . | 1 | 1 |
Rachal v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680, 687 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007); Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Gutierrez v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680, 687 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007); Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Bostickgreen1 sentence2014A 5 It is unclear from the video whether the NTTA vehicle was actually a tow truck, but the record from the suppression hearing shows that the prosecutor repeatedly referred to it as a tow truck. 6 The “reasonable person” test “presupposes an innocent person.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 438 (emphasis omitted) (citing Royer, 460 U.S. at 519 n.4 (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkerson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Id. at 531 . | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. Seibertgreen2 sentences2008See Seibert, 542 U.S. at 616 n. 6, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Souter, J.) and at 620 (Kennedy, J.). [31] See Maj. op. at 625. [32] Arguably, the record from the suppression hearing reflects that neither the trial court, based on its ruling at the suppression hearing, nor the state, based on its closing statements at the suppression hearing, understood appellant to be making a claim based on the principles discussed in either the United States Supreme Court's or the Missouri Supreme Court's decisions in Seibert (which could explain the lack of a complete record on what exactly occurred during the polygrap 2008See Seibert, 542 U.S. at 616 n. 6, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Souter, J.) and at 620 (Kennedy, J.). [31] See Maj. op. at 625. [32] Arguably, the record from the suppression hearing reflects that neither the trial court, based on its ruling at the suppression hearing, nor the state, based on its closing statements at the suppression hearing, understood appellant to be making a claim based on the principles discussed in either the United States Supreme Court's or the Missouri Supreme Court's decisions in Seibert (which could explain the lack of a complete record on what exactly occurred during the polygrap | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) ("When the objection is not specific, and the legal basis is not obvious, it does not serve the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule for an appellate court to reach the merits of a forfeitable issue that is essentially raised for the first time on appeal.") (emphasis in original). [33] Compare Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (defendant's warned statement inadmissible because "the unwarned and warned statements in this case were given during a nearly undifferentiated single event, taking place in the sam 2008See Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) ("When the objection is not specific, and the legal basis is not obvious, it does not serve the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule for an appellate court to reach the merits of a forfeitable issue that is essentially raised for the first time on appeal.”) (emphasis in original). .Compare Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 775 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (defendant’s warned statement inadmissible because "the unwarned and warned statements in this case were given during a nearly undifferentiated single event, taking place in the same ro | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dortchgreen1 sentence2001See United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Becknell v. State
green
2 sentences2011See Hubert, 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell, 720 S.W.2d at 528 . 2011See Hubert , 312 S.W.3d at 560 ; see also Matlock , 415 U.S. at 171 , 94 S. Ct. at 993 ; Becknell , 720 S.W.2d at 528 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Armendariz v. State
green
2 sentences2006Armendariz , 123 S.W.3d at 404 . 6: We have renumbered and italicized the footnotes appearing in the excerpt so as to distinguish the footnotes in Kothe from the footnotes appearing in this opinion. 7: Officer Bailey did testify that he was advised by Sergeant Loeffert that at the time of the traffic stop Appellant was in the back seat, crouched down with a jacket over his head. 2006Armendariz, 123 S.W.3d at 404 . [6] We have renumbered and italicized the footnotes appearing in the excerpt so as to distinguish the footnotes in Kothe from the footnotes appearing in this opinion. [7] Officer Bailey did testify that he was advised by Sergeant Loeffert that at the time of the traffic stop Appellant was in the back seat, crouched down with a jacket over his head. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Florida v. Royer
green
1 sentence2014A 5 It is unclear from the video whether the NTTA vehicle was actually a tow truck, but the record from the suppression hearing shows that the prosecutor repeatedly referred to it as a tow truck. 6 The “reasonable person” test “presupposes an innocent person.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 438 (emphasis omitted) (citing Royer, 460 U.S. at 519 n.4 (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.