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.
101 Texas opinions name it 6 courts 2002–2026 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2024An appellate court should not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 (quoting Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. 2024This means we will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury[] or influenced the jury only slightly.” Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. Crim. | 19 | 72 |
Schutz v. Stategreen2 sentences2026An appellate court “will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if [it], after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. 2026An 15 appellate court “will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if [it], after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Schutz, 63 S.W.3d at 444 . | 15 | 16 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2021We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining Delacerda – 38 the record, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 417 ; see also Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592 . 2006We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have "fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect." Id. (quoting Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 10 |
Morales v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Morales, 32 S.W.3d at 867 . 2006We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have "fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect." Id. (quoting Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 4 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Tex. Crim. 2024App. 2001)); see also Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 373 . | 2 | 7 |
Casey v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 885 (Tex. Crim. 2019App. 2010); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 371 . 149 Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Motilla v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. 2018Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Bagheri v. Stategreen2 sentences2019In evaluating the likelihood that the jury’s decision was affected by the error, we consider “everything in the record, including factors such as the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, whether the State emphasized the error, and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.” Sosa, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6504 , at *11-12 (citing Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 763 (Tex. Crim. 2019In evaluating the likelihood that the jury’s decision was affected by the error, we consider “everything in the record, including factors such as the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, whether the State emphasized the error, and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.” Sosa, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6504 , at *11-12 (citing Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 763 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Mays v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368, 385 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
De La Paz v. Stategreen1 sentence2023An appellate court “will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced 8 “We will uphold an evidentiary ruling if it was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case.” Flowers v. State, 438 S.W.3d 96, 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Quadreuy Flowers v. Stategreen1 sentence2023An appellate court “will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced 8 “We will uphold an evidentiary ruling if it was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case.” Flowers v. State, 438 S.W.3d 96, 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2021We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining Delacerda – 38 the record, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 417 ; see also Taylor, 268 S.W.3d at 592 . | 1 | 1 |
Coble v. Stategreen1 sentence2021An appellate court should not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 93-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011); see also Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (recognizing that if improperly admitted evidence did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect upon its deliberations, such non-constitutional error is harmless). | 1 | 1 |
Joe Louis Tienda v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Our focus is “not on whether the outcome of the trial was proper despite the error, but whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict.” Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93-94 ; see also Tienda v. State, 479 S.W.3d 863, 881 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2015, no pet.). 14 B. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling is non-constitutional error. 151 Non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.152 We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the 148 Rule 403; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Nonn v. Stategreen1 sentence2011An appellate court should not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole , has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” I d . (emphasis original) (reversing court of appeals’ holding that error was harmful and remanding for a full harm analysis); Nonn v. State , 117 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jabari v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Jabari v. State , 273 S.W.3d 745, 754 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirby v. State
green
2 sentences2015Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Kirby, 208 S.W.3d at 574 . 2015Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Kirby, 208 S.W.3d at 574 . | 6 | 2013–2015 |
Felix Sandoval v. State
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2019Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 287 . | 4 | 2017–2021 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence2016Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93–94; King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Arturo Petriciolet v. State
green
1 sentence2015Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Petriciolet, 442 S.W.3d at 654 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2008Johnson , 967 S.W.2d at 417 ; Scott 155 S.W.3d at 314-15 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2002App.1998), we interpreted the rule differently, explaining that a non-constitutional error does not require reversal "if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect." Then, in Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386 , we changed course entirely and implied that a non-constitutional error requires reversal on appeal only if the error literally affected a "substantial" right of the defendant, but we failed to explain how a court determines whether a right is "substantial." Most recently, in Schutz v. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.