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 2 courts 2003–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cantu v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Extraneous victim impact evidence, if anything, is more prejudicial than the non-extraneous victim impact evidence found by this Court to be inadmissible in Smith, supra.9 The Court in Cantu v. State refers to “the context of the special issues under Art. 37.071”.10 Courts in non-capital cases have recognized that any improper victim impact testimony from a potential victim not named in the indictment risks an unfair punishment hearing.11 Caselaw has explicitly extended the reasoning from capital cases 7 Id.(emphasis added). 8 Id. 9 Id.(emphasis added)(citations omitted). 10 Id. 11 Id. at 711 2016Extraneous victim impact evidence, if anything, is more prejudicial than the non-extraneous victim impact evidence found by this Court to be inadmissible in Smith, supra.9 The Court in Cantu v. State refers to “the context of the special issues under Art. 37.071”.10 Courts in non-capital cases have recognized that any improper victim impact testimony from a potential victim not named in the indictment risks an unfair punishment hearing.11 Caselaw has explicitly extended the reasoning from capital cases 7 Id.(emphasis added). 8 Id. 9 Id.(emphasis added)(citations omitted). 10 Id. 11 Id. at 711 | 7 | 7 |
Boston v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Victim-impact testimony can run a risk of extreme prejudice and can lead to an unfair punishment hearing. [1] See Boston v. State , 965 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex. App . 2003Victim-impact testimony can run a risk of extreme prejudice and can lead to an unfair punishment hearing. 1 See Boston v. State, 965 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.). | 5 | 5 |
Lindsay v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“Extraneous victim impact evidence by people not 10 named in the indictment is inadmissible because such evidence runs the risk of extreme prejudice and can lead to an unfair punishment hearing.” Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Lindsay v. State, 102 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). 2006Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Lindsay v. State, 102 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haley v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 518 (citing Cantu v. State , 939 S.W.2d 627, 637 (Tex. Crim. 2010Id. at 518 (citing Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
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.