14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith, William A/K/A Bill Smithgreen2 sentences2018For example, in Smith v. State, a bench-trial case, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that, although a defendant had objected to the admission of evidence and the trial court had carried the objection with the case, the defendant did not preserve error when the trial judge admitted the evidence unaccompanied by a ruling on the complaint. 499 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. 2018For example, in Smith v. State, a bench-trial case, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that, although a defendant had objected to the admission of evidence and the trial court had carried the objection with the case, the defendant did not preserve error when the trial judge admitted the evidence unaccompanied by a ruling on the complaint. 499 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a 2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a | 2 | 2 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a | 1 | 1 |
Gearhart v. Stategreen1 sentence2016App. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1142 (2011); Thierry v. State, 288 S.W.3d 80 , 84–85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459, 465 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Brown v. 3 State, No. 02-04-00405-CR, 2006 WL 413448 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 23, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a defendant did not preserve error concerning the State’s opening statement because he did not obtain an adverse ruling on objections to the statement); Ogaz v. State, No. 02-03-00419-CR, 2005 WL 2898139 , | 1 | 1 |
Andres Alfredo Segovia v. Stategreen1 sentence2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a | 1 | 1 |
Reeves, Gary Patrickgreen2 sentences2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a 2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a | 1 | 1 |
Wooten, Codiem Renoirgreen1 sentence2016To determine “some harm,” the appellate court evaluates “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Id. (citing Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)); see also Segovia v. State, 467 S.W.3d 545, 556 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2015, pet. ref'd). ■ By contrast, if the defendant did not preserve error, the defendant must “show .that the error was ‘fundamental’ and that.he suffered ‘egregious harm.’” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Alman-za, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). “‘This is a | 1 | 1 |
Hutch v. Stategreen1 sentence2016An eiTor in the charge is egregious only if it “affect[s] ‘the very basis of the case,’ deprive[s] the defendant of a ‘valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect[s] a defensive theory.’ ” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d, 166, 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172 ). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Id. at 124−25 (Teague, J., concurring). 2015Id. at 124-25 (Teague, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ngo v. State
green
2 sentences2015If the defendant did not preserve error, we will reverse only if the record shows “egregious harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743-44 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . 2015If the defendant did not preserve error, we will reverse only if the record shows “egregious harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743-44 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Bill Boyd Kuhn v. State
green
2 sentences2015If the defendant did not preserve error, we will reverse only if the record shows “egregious harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743-44 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . 2015If the defendant did not preserve error, we will reverse only if the record shows “egregious harm.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743-44 ; Kuhn, 393 S.W.3d at 524 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Goforth v. Alvey
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miranda Renea Kelso v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Irby v. Texas
green
1 sentence2016App. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1142 (2011); Thierry v. State, 288 S.W.3d 80 , 84–85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459, 465 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Brown v. 3 State, No. 02-04-00405-CR, 2006 WL 413448 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 23, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a defendant did not preserve error concerning the State’s opening statement because he did not obtain an adverse ruling on objections to the statement); Ogaz v. State, No. 02-03-00419-CR, 2005 WL 2898139 , | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Thierry v. State
green
1 sentence2016App. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1142 (2011); Thierry v. State, 288 S.W.3d 80 , 84–85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d); Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459, 465 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref’d); see also Brown v. 3 State, No. 02-04-00405-CR, 2006 WL 413448 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 23, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that a defendant did not preserve error concerning the State’s opening statement because he did not obtain an adverse ruling on objections to the statement); Ogaz v. State, No. 02-03-00419-CR, 2005 WL 2898139 , | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Marini v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Marini , the court held that the defendant did not preserve error because he failed to timely object to an officer’s testimony regarding narcotics, and, in a footnote, the court expressly stated that the defendant’s motion to suppress his oral confession did not embrace the admission of the evidence to which the defendant was objecting at trial. 593 S.W.2d at 714 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Thomas , the defendant did not obtain a hearing or a ruling on his motion to suppress evidence, so the defendant was required to object to the evidence at the earliest opportunity to preserve error. 884 S.W.2d at 216-17 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Turner v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Turner , the defendant did not preserve error because he had not filed a motion to suppress evidence and did not object until after the officer testified about the arrest and subsequent search. 642 S.W.2d at 217 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hefner v. State
green
2 sentences2000In Hefner , the court held the defendant did not preserve error because he requested only a general mistake *375 of fact instruction that completely failed to apply the defense to the facts of the case. 735 S.W.2d at 620 . 2000In Hefner , the court held the defendant did not preserve error because he requested only a general mistake *375 of fact instruction that completely failed to apply the defense to the facts of the case. 735 S.W.2d at 620 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2000In Williams , this Court held the defendant did not preserve error because he did not specify how the mistake of fact defense applied to the facts of that case. 930 S.W.2d at 903 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Frausto v. State
green
2 sentences1985Finally, in Frausto v. State, 642 S.W.2d 506 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), the prosecutor read the enhancement clause to the veniremen during voir dire. 1985Finally, in Frausto v. State, 642 S.W.2d 506 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), the prosecutor read the enhancement clause to the veniremen during voir dire. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.