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.
16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. 2008Garcia v. State , 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Barshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 355 ; Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 417. 2024Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 . | 2 | 8 |
Motilla v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The erroneous admission of evidence is nonconstitutional error.48 We may not reverse a conviction for nonconstitutional error unless the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.49 The erroneous admission of evidence does not affect substantial rights if, after examining the record as a whole, the reviewing court is reasonably assured that the error did not influence the verdict or had but a slight effect.50 Here, numerous doctors testified during trial to the nature and seriousness of B.S.’s injuries, and their testimony was much more detailed and extensive than the limited testimony 2015The erroneous admission of evidence is nonconstitutional error.48 We may not reverse a conviction for nonconstitutional error unless the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.49 The erroneous admission of evidence does not affect substantial rights if, after examining the record as a whole, the reviewing court is reasonably assured that the error did not influence the verdict or had but a slight effect.50 Here, numerous doctors testified during trial to the nature and seriousness of B.S.’s injuries, and their testimony was much more detailed and extensive than the limited testimony | 2 | 4 |
Schutz v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. 2010Schutz v. State , 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Burnett v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 . “‘Grave doubt’ means that ‘in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Id. (quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 , 637–38 (Tex. Crim. 2015Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). "'Grave doubt' means that 'in the judge's mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.'" Id. (quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). | 1 | 4 |
Feagin v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 355 ; Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 417. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2023Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 ; Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 355 ; Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 417 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.