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.
88 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2025 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
Langham v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Id. at 582 . 2024Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 582 (Tex. Crim. | 10 | 14 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 108 (Tex. Crim. 2020Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. Crim. | 9 | 11 |
Isenhower v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Dixon, 201 S.W.3d at 734 ; Phillips, 193 S.W.3d at 914 ; cf. Reza, 339 S.W.3d at 713 (distinguishing Phillips and Dixon and using usual harm analysis for charge 23 error when trial court required election but failed to instruct jury in charge); Isenhower, 261 S.W.3d at 175 (holding same). 2016See Dixon, 201 S.W.3d at 734 ; Phillips, 193 S.W.3d at 914 ; cf. Reza, 339 S.W.3d at 713 (distinguishing Phillips and Dixon and using usual harm analysis for charge error when trial court required election but failed to instruct jury in charge); Isenhower, 261 S.W.3d at 175 (holding same). | 4 | 4 |
Pena v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See id. at 654 . 2015See id. at 654 . | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Wernegreen2 sentences2012Citing Ex parte Werne , he asserts that his “liberty rights” were violated and that a constitutional harm analysis demonstrates reversible error. 118 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). 2012Citing Ex parte Werne , he asserts that his “liberty rights” were violated and that a constitutional harm analysis demonstrates reversible error. 118 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Cosio v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Newsome v. State, No. 11-09-00222-CR, 2012 WL 4458176 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Eastland Sept. 27, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 776 ). 2016The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the constitutional component is subject to the constitutional harm standard under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a) when it was properly preserved by a timely and specific objection at trial.” Id. | 2 | 7 |
Phillips v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Smith, 2010 WL 3377797 , at *11–12; see also Phillips, 193 S.W.3d at 910 . 4 We further explained, ―Even if we were to apply the constitutional harm standard applied in Duffey, we would conclude and hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts.‖ Id. at *14 n.13 (citing Tex. R. 2011See Smith, 2010 WL 3377797 , at *11–12; see also Phillips, 193 S.W.3d at 910 . 4 We further explained, ―Even if we were to apply the constitutional harm standard applied in Duffey, we would conclude and hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts.‖ Id. at *14 n.13 (citing Tex. R. | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopezgreen2 sentences2015Although at least one court has held such error to be “structural,” Mondragon, supra, at 942–43, neither the United States Supreme Court nor this Court has yet declared whether the due process violation of trying an incompetent defendant constitutes the type of constitutional error, such as those enumerated most recently in United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 , 148–49, 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), that is not susceptible to a harm analysis. 2015Although at least one court has held such error to be “structural,” Mondragon, supra, at 942–43, neither the United States Supreme Court nor this Court has yet declared whether the due process violation of trying an incompetent defendant constitutes the type of constitutional error, such as those enumerated most recently in United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 , 148–49, 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), that is not susceptible to a harm analysis. | 2 | 3 |
Penry v. Lynaughred2 sentences2012See Tennard , supra ; Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). 2012See Tennard, supra; Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). | 2 | 3 |
Eddings v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2012See Tennard , supra ; Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). 2012See Tennard, supra; Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). | 2 | 3 |
Lake v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Lake v. State, 532 S.W.3d 408, 418-19 (Tex. Crim. 2025See Lake v. State, 532 S.W.3d 408, 418-19 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Wesbrook v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Wells, 611 S.W.3d at 410; see also Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (“[T]he appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.”). 2013In making this determination, we “ ‘should not focus on the propriety of the outcome of the trial.’ ” McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divisiongreen2 sentences2012See Tennard , supra ; Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). 2012See Tennard, supra; Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110-12 (1982). | 2 | 2 |
Merritt v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); see also Tex.R.App. 2007See Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd, untimely filed); see also TEX.R.APP. | 2 | 2 |
Phillips v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, State’s pet. granted; appellant’s pet. refd). 2005Phillips v. State , 130 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, State = s pet. granted; appellant = s pet. ref = d). | 2 | 2 |
Franklin v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Id. at 354-57 . 2019Id. at 354-57 . | 1 | 3 |
Duffey v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Id. at 631–32. [4] We further explained, “Even if we were to apply the constitutional harm standard applied in Duffey , we would conclude and hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts.” Id. at *14 n.13 (citing Tex. R. 2011We further explained, “Even if we were to apply the constitutional harm standard applied in Duffey , we would conclude and hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts.” Id. at *14 n. 13 (citing Tex.R.App. | 1 | 3 |
Proenza, Abraham Jacobgreen2 sentences2020Proenza II faulted the court of appeals for utilizing a constitutional harm standard when an appellant relied on error stemming from a statutory error—that error occurring when the trial court made a comment that violated Article 38.05’s prohibition on remarks calculated to convey the trial court’s opinion of the case to the jury. 541 S.W.3d at 801 . 2020The trial court’s comments that 1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also explained in Proenza v. State that where a criminal defendant’s complaints regarding a trial court’s comments are statutory only, courts of appeals should undertake a nonconstitutional harm analysis, whereas constitutional complaints require a constitutional harm analysis. 541 S.W.3d 786, 801 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
| Potier v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Larry Joseph Tillman Jr. v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Campbell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Fox v. State, 115 S.W.3d 550, 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Wappler v. Stategreen1 sentence2024In a constitutional harm analysis, “[o]ur task is to calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the evidence adduced at trial.” Wappler v. State, 183 S.W.3d 765, 777 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Snowden, Rion Phealgreen1 sentence2024Using a constitutional harm analysis, the reviewing court must reverse unless it “concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or the punishment assessed.” Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 818 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Gary Wayne Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024While the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence is generally nonconstitutional error, “[e]rroneous exclusion of evidence can rise to the level of constitutional error . . . when the excluded evidence ‘forms such a vital portion of the case that exclusion effectively precludes the defendant from presenting a 32 defense.’” Wilson v. State, 451 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (quoting Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 665 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Woodard v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cronicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ivan William Sanchez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Susan Lucille Wright v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roderick Morrison v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodney Dimitrius Lake A/K/A Rodney D. Lake v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| REZA v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dixon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rubio v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brady v. Marylandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCarthy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Archie v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mondragon
green
2 sentences2015Although at least one court has held such error to be “structural,” Mondragon, supra, at 942–43, neither the United States Supreme Court nor this Court has yet declared whether the due process violation of trying an incompetent defendant constitutes the type of constitutional error, such as those enumerated most recently in United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 , 148–49, 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), that is not susceptible to a harm analysis. 2013Although at least one court has held such error to be “structural,” Mondragon, supra, at 942-43 , neither the United States Supreme Court nor this Court has yet declared whether the due process violation of trying an incompetent defendant constitutes the type of constitutional error, such as those enumerated most recently in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148-49 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), that is not susceptible to a harm analysis. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
Reeves, Gary Patrick
green
2 sentences2014While related to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Texas-specific jury instruction to disregard all evidence obtained in violation of the law is, as Vogel’s brief 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 T EX. 2014While related to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Texas-specific jury instruction to disregard all evidence obtained in violation of the law is, as Vogel’s brief 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 T EX. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Aguirre-Mata v. State
green
2 sentences2013And a careful reading of Aguirre-Mata II reveals that we did not purport to evaluate a constitutional claim for harm there either, instead holding that a claim that the trial court erred in failing to admonish as required by Article 26.13 does not, without more, make out a constitutional claim, much less call for a constitutional harm analysis. 125 S.W.3d at 474 . . 2013Boykin Error The court of appeals did not determine in its opinion whether Boykin error actually occurred in this case, pretermiting that analysis with its faulty conclusions that any such error was forfeited and, in any event, harmless under Rule 44.2(b).52 Ordinarily, we would remand a cause to the lower appellate court when our rejection of its basis for disposition gives rise to another “issue [that was] raised and [now becomes] necessary to final disposition of the failing to admonish as required by Article 26.13 does not, without more, make out a constitutional claim, much less call for | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Aguirre-Mata v. State
green
2 sentences2013In Aguirre-Mata I, we declined to apply the constitutional harm standard expressly because "Appellant did not claim on direct appeal that the trial court's failure to admonish him of the range of punishment caused his plea to be obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” 992 S.W.2d at 499 . 2013In Aguirre-Mata I, we declined to apply the constitutional harm standard expressly because “Appellant did not claim on direct appeal that the trial court’s failure to admonish him of the range of punishment caused his plea to be obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” 992 S.W.2d at 499 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Walters v. State
green
2 sentences2025In Walters, the Court rejected Walters’ argument that he was entitled to a constitutional harm analysis because the exclusion of the evidence had compelled him to testify when he otherwise would not have. 247 S.W.3d at 222 . 2025The Court explained that a defendant faces the “hard tactical choice” in such a situation to either testify and present the self-defense evidence himself or to choose “the option of refusing to testify and instead, if he is convicted, of obtaining appellate correction of the erroneous evidentiary ruling and with it a new trial.” Id. (quoting United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 , 477 (7th Cir. 2005)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
cluster 789600
green
1 sentence2025The Court explained that a defendant faces the “hard tactical choice” in such a situation to either testify and present the self-defense evidence himself or to choose “the option of refusing to testify and instead, if he is convicted, of obtaining appellate correction of the erroneous evidentiary ruling and with it a new trial.” Id. (quoting United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 , 477 (7th Cir. 2005)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lighteard v. State
green
1 sentence2025Ake error is subject to a constitutional harm analysis under Rule 44.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.34 See Lighteard, 982 S.W.2d at 535 ; see also White 34 In Rey, the court of criminal appeals originally held that the denial of due process by refusing to appoint a necessary expert for an indigent defendant was structural error that was not subject to any harm analysis. 897 S.W.3d at 345. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Cannon v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Owings, Richard Charles Jr. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Almanza v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Love v. State green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Jasper v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Rios v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Gonzales v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Ex Parte Dutchover green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Woodson v. North Carolina green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.