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 1 courts 2004–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saxton v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Thus, to determine if the State brought forward sufficient evidence to disprove a nonaffirmative defense such as self-defense, we ask “whether[,] after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact [1] would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and [2] also would have found against appellant on the [defensive] issue beyond a reasonable doubt.” Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. 2015To determine sufficiency of the evidence to disprove a nonaffirmative defense, the appellate court asks “whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the [defensive] issue beyond a reasonable doubt.” Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 13 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 1991); see also Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 , 144–47 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d). 2015App. 1991); see also Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 , 144–47 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (applying Saxton and Zuliani to the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s self-defense and defense-of-third-person theories). | 4 | 4 |
Krajcovic v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ; see also Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138 , 144– 47 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (applying Saxton and Zuliani to the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s self-defense and defense-of-third-person theories). “[A] judge must give a requested instruction on every defensive issue raised by the evidence without regard to its source or strength, even if the evidence is contradicted or is not credible.” Krajcovic v. State, 393 S.W.3d 282, 286 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Dotson v. State
green
2 sentences2008Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ; Dotson , 146 S.W.3d at 291 . 2008Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914 ; Dotson, 146 S.W.3d at 291 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.