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 1998–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frank v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tex. Crim. 1998A defendant is entitled to a multiple assailants instruction if “there is evidence, viewed from accused’s standpoint, that he was in danger of unlawful attack or a threatened attack at the hands of more than one assailant.” Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (quoting Wilson v. State, 140 Tex.Crim. 424 , 145 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1940)). | 6 | 6 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences1998A defendant is entitled to a multiple assailants instruction if “there is evidence, viewed from accused’s standpoint, that he was in danger of unlawful attack or a threatened attack at the hands of more than one assailant.” Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (quoting Wilson v. State, 140 Tex.Crim. 424 , 145 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1940)). 1998A defendant is entitled to a multiple assailants instruction if “there is evidence, viewed from accused’s standpoint, that he was in danger of unlawful attack or a threatened attack at the hands of more than one assailant.” Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (quoting Wilson v. State, 140 Tex.Crim. 424 , 145 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1940)). | 2 | 2 |
Dickey v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Dickey, 22 S.W.3d at 492-93 (holding there was no harm for exclusion of a multiple assailants instruction because the evidence that the deceased and another were acting in concert was ambiguous at best). 2008See Dickey , 22 S.W.3d at 492 (majority opinion); Collier , 2002 WL 1824967 , at *7. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Brown v. State, 651 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Brown v. State, 651 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jeremy Deshawn Dugar v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Dugar, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3519 at *12 ; Echavarria v. State, 362 S.W.3d 148, 152 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d). 17 Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gerardo Echavarria, Jr. v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Dugar, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3519 at *12 ; Echavarria v. State, 362 S.W.3d 148, 152 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d). 17 Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Dugar, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3519 at *12 ; Echavarria v. State, 362 S.W.3d 148, 152 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d). 17 Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Goodspeed v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Accordingly, we may not hold counsel’s performance deficient unless “the challenged conduct was so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013In Vasquez v. State, the first case cited by appellant, the court held that trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to request a jury charge instruction on the necessity defense. 830 S.W.2d 948, 949 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. State
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 348 . 2020Id. at 348 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Posey v. State
green
1 sentence2015Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 62 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.