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 2000–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2016If evidence of extraneous offenses or bad acts is before the jury, article 37.07, section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that jurors “be instructed not to consider –17– such extraneous offenses or bad acts in assessing the defendant’s punishment unless they find the defendant culpable for such offenses or acts under the statutorily prescribed reasonable-doubt standard.” Allen v. State, 47 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d); see TEX. 2005See Allen v. State, 47 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (“If extraneous offense or bad acts evidence is before the jury, regardless of whether such evidence was introduced at the guilt-innocence or punishment phase, article 37.07, section 3(a) requires that the jurors be instructed not to consider such extraneous offenses or bad acts in assessing the defendant’s punishment unless they find the defendant culpable for such offenses or bad acts under the statutorily prescribed reasonable doubt standard.”) (emphasis added). | 6 | 7 |
Huizar v. Stategreen2 sentences2021An instruction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an extraneous offense is necessary “if the jury is to consider extraneous-offense and bad-act evidence under the statutorily prescribed reasonable-doubt standard.” Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479, 483-84 (Tex. Crim. 12 App. 2000 ). 2021The Huizar opinion observed, “[w]hile [Article 37.07] section 3(a) says nothing about the submission of a jury instruction to this effect, such instruction is logically required if the jury is to consider the extraneous-offense and bad-act evidence under the statutorily prescribed reasonable-doubt standard.” Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) [Emphasis added]. | 5 | 9 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Mitchell , 931 S.W.2d at 954-57 (Clinton, J., concurring; Meyers, J., concurring) (Judge Maloney joined Judge Meyers’s concurring opinion). [4] The Fort Worth Court held in Allen : If extraneous offense or bad acts evidence is before the jury, regardless of whether such evidence was introduced at the guilt-innocence or punishment phase, article 37.07, section 3(a) requires that the jurors be instructed not to consider such extraneous offenses or bad acts in assessing the defendant’s punishment unless they find the defendant culpable for such offenses or acts under the statutorily prescribe 2005See Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954-57 (Clinton, J., concurring; Meyers, J., concurring) (Judge Maloney joined Judge Meyers's concurring opinion). 4 .The Fort Worth Court held in Allen : If extraneous offense or bad acts evidence is before the jury, regardless of whether such evidence was introduced at the guilt-innocence or punishment phase, article 37.07, section 3(a) requires that the jurors be instructed not to consider such extraneous offenses or bad acts in assessing the defendant’s punishment unless they find the defendant culpable for such offenses or acts under the statutorily prescribed | 3 | 3 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“By its terms, section 3(a)(1)’s reasonable-doubt standard applies only to extraneous offenses and does not apply to evidence that arises in the ‘circumstances of the offense for which [the defendant] is being tried.’” Lopez v. State, 515 S.W.3d 547, 552 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d) (citing Tex. Code Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stonegreen1 sentence2006Allen , 47 S.W.2d at 50, citing Huizar and Fields . (10) In Graves , the court held that the jury instruction required by Huizar was limited to extraneous offense or bad act evidence actually admitted at the penalty stage of the trial, but then extended Huizar to hold that the required jury instruction was necessary for extraneous offense evidence from the guilt stage only if that evidence was in turn used at the penalty stage. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2007Allen v. State , 47 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). [5] See Anders v. Cal. , 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). [6] For reasons unknown, newly appointed counsel in Carter chose not to raise this “arguable issue” on resubmission. 2007Allen v. State , 47 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). [5] See Anders v. Cal. , 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). [6] For reasons unknown, newly appointed counsel in Carter chose not to raise this “arguable issue” on resubmission. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Fields v. State
green
2 sentences2006The Huizar opinion observed that "[w]hile section 3(a) says nothing about the submission of a jury instruction to this effect, such instruction is logically required if the jury is to consider the extraneous offense and bad act evidence under the statutorily prescribed reasonable-doubt standard." Id. at 484 . 2001Accord Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484-85 ; Fields, 1 S.W.3d at 688 . | 2 | 2001–2006 |
Arline v. State
green
2 sentences2000Absent such instruction, the jury might apply a standard of proof less than reasonable doubt in its determination of the defendant's connection to such offenses and bad acts, contrary to section 3(a). [7] Section 3(a)'s requirement that the jury be satisfied of the defendant's culpability in the extraneous offenses and bad acts is thus "law applicable to the case" in the non-capital punishment context. [8] Cf. Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 352 fn. 4 (Tex.Crim. 2000Absent such instruction, the jury might apply a standard of proof less than reasonable doubt in its determination of the defendant’s connection to such offenses and bad acts, contrary to section 3(a). 7 Section 3(a)’s requirement that the jury be satisfied of the defendant’s culpability in the extraneous offenses and bad acts is thus “law applicable to the case” in the non-capital punishment context. 8 Cf. Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 352 fn. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (recognizing that “statutorily defined word or phrase must be included in the charge as part of the ‘law applicable to the cas | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.