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.
12 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences2011For example, though not specifically listed in Rule 404(b), extraneous-offense evidence may be admissible when a defendant raises an affirmative defense or a defensive issue that negates one of the elements of the crime, or when the evidence is "same transaction contextual evidence.” Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847, 858 (Tex. Crim. 2010Additionally, "extraneous-offense evidence may be admissible when a defendant raises an affirmative defense or a defensive issue that negates one of the elements of the crime." Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847, 858 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). | 4 | 4 |
Johnston v. Stategreen2 sentences2026The trial court ruled that the prosecutor could ask A.P. about the first and fourth encounters because of the intent element, see id., overruled the Rule 403 objections, and expressly found that the first and fourth encounters’ probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. 2017For example, extraneous offense evidence may be admissible when a defendant raises an affirmative defense or a defensive issue that negates one of the elements of the crim[e.”]” Id. | 1 | 5 |
Albrecht v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Evidence of extraneous offenses has been held admissible “[t]o refute a defensive theory raised by the accused.” Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Enserch Corp.green1 sentence2015Nichols v. Smith, 507 4 S.W.2d 518 , 520 (Tex. 1974); Palmer v. Enserch Corp., 728 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex. App. -Austin 3rd Dist.1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bradley v. State
green
2 sentences2008Bradley, 960 S.W.2d at 803 . 2008Bradley , 960 S.W.2d at 803 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Montgomery v. State
green
2 sentences2010Further, “[r]ule 403 favors admissibility of relevant evidence, and the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d at 389 . 2010Further, "[r]ule 403 favors admissibility of relevant evidence, and the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial." Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d at 389 . | 1 | 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.
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.