State may properly challenge (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

State may properly challenge in Texas

13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Coleman v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 9 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2025
2 sentences

2009The State may properly challenge a prospective juror for cause when the juror would hold the State to a higher standard than A beyond a reasonable doubt. @ Coleman v. State , 881 S.W.2d 344, 360 (Tex. Crim.

2003Consistent with the second basis for a challenge for cause set forth above, the State may properly challenge a juror for cause when the juror would hold the State to a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).

99
Mason v. Stategreen
texapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015
2 sentences

2015“The State may properly challenge a prospective juror for cause when the juror would hold the State to a burden higher than beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delacerda, 425 S.W.3d at 382 (citing Mason v. State, 116 S.W.3d 248, 255 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd)).

2011Mason, 116 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)); see also Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (“[A] juror who would require more evidence than necessary to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt would be subject to a challenge for cause.”); Harris, 122 S.W.3d at 880 (“Although the State may not bind a prospective juror to a specific set of facts, the State is permitted to determine whether a prospective juror will require evidence the law does not require to convict a defendant.”).

22
Harris v. Stategreen
texapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Mason, 116 S.W.3d at 255-56 (holding question that “identified veniremen who would not convict [of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child] in the absence of DNA or medical evidence— even though Texas law does not require it and the State might otherwise prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt” was proper commitment question); Harris, 122 S.W.3d at 880 (“[T]he State is permitted to determine whether a prospective juror will require evidence the law does not require to convict a defendant”).

2011Mason, 116 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)); see also Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (“[A] juror who would require more evidence than necessary to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt would be subject to a challenge for cause.”); Harris, 122 S.W.3d at 880 (“Although the State may not bind a prospective juror to a specific set of facts, the State is permitted to determine whether a prospective juror will require evidence the law does not require to convict a defendant.”).

11
Blackwell v. Stategreen
texapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Mason, 116 S.W.3d at 255 (citing Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)); see also Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (“[A] juror who would require more evidence than necessary to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt would be subject to a challenge for cause.”); Harris, 122 S.W.3d at 880 (“Although the State may not bind a prospective juror to a specific set of facts, the State is permitted to determine whether a prospective juror will require evidence the law does not require to convict a defendant.”).

11
Jackson v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d at 478 ; Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d at 682 ; Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d at 404 ; Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4, 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Rogelio Delacerda v. State green
texapp · 2011
1 sentence

2015“The State may properly challenge a prospective juror for cause when the juror would hold the State to a burden higher than beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delacerda, 425 S.W.3d at 382 (citing Mason v. State, 116 S.W.3d 248, 255 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd)).

12015–2015
Kuzma v. State green
moctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1994Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d at 478 ; Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d at 682 ; Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d at 404 ; Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4, 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

11994–1994
Allridge v. State green
texcrimapp · 1991
1 sentence

1994Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d at 478 ; Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d at 682 ; Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d at 404 ; Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4, 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

11994–1994
Cantu v. State green
texcrimapp · 1992
1 sentence

1994Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d at 478 ; Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d at 682 ; Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d at 404 ; Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4, 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

11994–1994
Wainwright v. Witt green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

1993Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S., at 422 , 105 S.Ct., at 851 , 83 L.Ed.2d, at 850 .

1993Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S., at 422 , 105 S.Ct., at 851 , 83 L.Ed.2d, at 850 .

11993–1993
Bodde v. State green
texcrimapp · 1978
2 sentences

1983Bodde v. State, 568 S.W.2d 344 .

1983Bodde v. State, 568 S.W.2d 344 .

11983–1983

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check