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.
13 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2009The first of these were declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying.... ¶ In cases where the evidence suggested that the defendant had caused a person to be absent, but had not done so to prevent the person from testifying — as in the typical murder case involving accusatorial statements by the victim — the testimony was excluded unless it was confronted or fell within the dying declaration exception.”) (internal citations omitted); see also State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 148 (Tenn.2007) ("Since Crawford , we found no jurisdiction diat has exc 2009The first of these were declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying.... ¶ In cases where the evidence suggested that the defendant had caused a person to be absent, but had not done so to prevent the person from testifying—as in the typical murder case involving accusatorial statements by the victim—the testimony was excluded unless it was confronted or fell within the dying declaration exception.") (internal citations omitted); see also State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 148 (Tenn.2007) ("Since Crawford, we found no jurisdiction that has excluded | 3 | 3 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences2023He relies on Gardner v. State, which addresses the history and legal requirements of the dying declaration exception. 306 S.W.3d 274 , 289–90. 2015See id. at 288 n.20. 148 Analysis As a threshold matter, it is the State’s position that Appellant failed to properly brief Issues 38, 39, and 40. | 1 | 3 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2009A declarant’s belief that death was imminent “may be inferred from the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the injury, medical opinions stated to him, or his conduct.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 689 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wilks v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Evid. 804(b)(2); see also Wilks v. State , 983 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Pritchett v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Tex. R.CeimEvid. 804(b)(2); Pritchett v. State, 874 S.W.2d 168, 176 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 804(b)(2); see also Williams v. State, 800 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, pet. refd, 805 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 804(b)(2); see also Williams v. State, 800 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, pet. refd, 805 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Henderson v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 160 , 192 S.W.2d 273, 276 (1946); Lee v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. 220 , 185 S.W.2d 978, 981 (1945); TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 602. 1987Henderson v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 160 , 192 S.W.2d 273, 276 (1946); Lee v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. 220 , 185 S.W.2d 978, 981 (1945); TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 602. | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Henderson v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 160 , 192 S.W.2d 273, 276 (1946); Lee v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. 220 , 185 S.W.2d 978, 981 (1945); TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 602. 1987Henderson v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. 160 , 192 S.W.2d 273, 276 (1946); Lee v. State, 148 Tex.Crim. 220 , 185 S.W.2d 978, 981 (1945); TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 602. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
green
1 sentence1994The statement is inadmissible, he maintains, because if Blaekshear had lived, and was jointly tried with appellant, and did not testify, his incriminating statement would be barred by the Confrontation Clause of both the Texas and Federal Constitutions. 4 See Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Contreras v. State
green
2 sentences1994Appellant also contends that to be admissible under the dying declaration exception, the statement must be one to which Black-shear could have testified had he lived, citing Contreras v. State, 745 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no pet.). 1994Appellant also contends that to be admissible under the dying declaration exception, the statement must be one to which Black-shear could have testified had he lived, citing Contreras v. State, 745 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no pet.). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cruz v. New York
green
2 sentences1994The statement is inadmissible, he maintains, because if Blaekshear had lived, and was jointly tried with appellant, and did not testify, his incriminating statement would be barred by the Confrontation Clause of both the Texas and Federal Constitutions. 4 See Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). 1994The statement is inadmissible, he maintains, because if Blaekshear had lived, and was jointly tried with appellant, and did not testify, his incriminating statement would be barred by the Confrontation Clause of both the Texas and Federal Constitutions. 4 See Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
James v. State
green
1 sentence1990However, Rule 81(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that such error will not be reversible if “the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.” Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Munoz v. State
green
1 sentence1981Munoz v. State, 524 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.