84 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burnett v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Instead, “it is the reviewing court’s duty to assess harm after conducting a proper review of the record to determine the influence the error had in light of all the other evidence.” Id. (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 762 (1946)). 2015We cannot reverse a criminal conviction unless we have “‘a grave doubt’ that the result was free from the substantial influence of the error . . . . ‘Grave doubt’ means that ‘in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 , 637–38 (Tex. Crim. | 26 | 64 |
United States v. Lanegreen2 sentences2015United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986); Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. 2006“Grave doubt” means that “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Thus, “in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win.” Id . at 637-38 (quoting United States v. Lane , 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986) and O’Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 433-36 (1995)) (footnotes omitted). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Mechanikgreen2 sentences2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 16 regarding who *506 was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanic 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Ju 2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 16 regarding who *506 was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanic 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Ju | 2 | 9 |
Barshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 288 ; accord Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. Crim. 2021Based on our review under the factors used in Coble—three weighing against reversible harm, one in favor, and the other mixed—we are not left with “‘grave doubt’ about whether the result of the trial was free from the substantial influence of the error.” See Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 288 ; see also Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 . | 2 | 6 |
O'NEAL v. McAninchgreen2 sentences2015App. 2002) (quoting O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 , 115 S. Ct. 992, 994 (1995)). 2015App. 2002) (quoting O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 , 115 S. Ct. 992, 994 (1995)). | 2 | 6 |
Felix Sandoval v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Based on our review under the factors used in Coble—three weighing against reversible harm, one in favor, and the other mixed—we are not left with “‘grave doubt’ about whether the result of the trial was free from the substantial influence of the error.” See Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 288 ; see also Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 . 2015App. 2005) (footnotes omitted); accord Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 287-88 . [I]f the reviewing court has “a grave doubt” that the result was free from the substantial influence of the error, then it must treat the error as if it did. | 2 | 3 |
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021Instead, “it is the reviewing court’s duty to assess harm after conducting a proper review of the record to determine the influence the error had in light of all the other evidence.” Id. (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 762 (1946)). 2016App. 1997); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993) (identifying the proper standard as “whether the error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). 34 King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (applying the test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Kotteakos v. United States (citing Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65 )). 35 Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764 . 36 Id. 37 Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Rather, it is the reviewing court’s duty to assess harm after conducting a proper review of the record to determine the influence the error had in light of all the other evidence.” Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 926 (Tex. Crim. 2020Thomas v. State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 926 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2016If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.”35 On the other hand, if “the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand.” 36 Neither Appellant nor the State has any formal burden to show harm or harmlessness under Rule 44.2(b).37 Rather, it is the reviewing court’s duty to assess harm after conducting a proper review of the record to determine the influence the error had in light of all the other evidence.38 designated for publication); Walker v. State, 994 S.W.2d 199, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999 2016App. 1997); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993) (identifying the proper standard as “whether the error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). 34 King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (applying the test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Kotteakos v. United States (citing Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65 )). 35 Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764 . 36 Id. 37 Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen1 sentence2016App. 1997); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993) (identifying the proper standard as “whether the error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)). 34 King, 953 S.W.2d at 271 (applying the test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Kotteakos v. United States (citing Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65 )). 35 Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764 . 36 Id. 37 Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2016If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.”35 On the other hand, if “the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand.” 36 Neither Appellant nor the State has any formal burden to show harm or harmlessness under Rule 44.2(b).37 Rather, it is the reviewing court’s duty to assess harm after conducting a proper review of the record to determine the influence the error had in light of all the other evidence.38 designated for publication); Walker v. State, 994 S.W.2d 199, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999 | 1 | 1 |
Gutierrez-Gomez v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Id. at 637 ; see also Gutierrez-Gomez, 321 S.W.3d at 682 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Mick's argument is based on our opinion in Brown v. State , 189 S.W.3d 382, 387 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, (footnote: 16) regarding who was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, join 2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,16 regarding who was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice | 4 | 2008–2009 |
Webb v. State
green
2 sentences2021Consequently, although the trial court erred by failing to admonish appellant as required by article 26.13(a), after reviewing the record as a whole, we do not have “grave doubt” about whether appellant’s conviction “was free from the substantial influence of the error.” See Webb, 156 S.W.3d at 656 . 2021Consequently, although the trial court erred by failing to admonish appellant as required by article 26.13(a), after reviewing the record as a whole, we do not have “grave doubt” about whether appellant’s conviction “was free from the substantial influence of the error.” See Webb, 156 S.W.3d at 656 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Reeves v. State
green
2 sentences2009“Grave doubt” means that “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Thus, “in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win.” -9- 04-06-00251-CR, 04-06-00252-CR and 04-06-00253-CR Id. at 795 (quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-38 (Tex. Crim. 2009“Grave doubt” means that “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Thus, “in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win.” Id. at 795 {quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-38 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (footnotes omitted)). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Grado, Michael Anthony
green
1 sentence2024Grado v. State, No. 07-11-00468-CR, 2013 WL 3355743 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 28, 2013), aff’d, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wall v. State
green
1 sentence2021By contrast, the United States Supreme Court has held that, in constitutional error cases, “the standard of review ‘requir[es] the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 , 746 n.53 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Shankle v. State
green
1 sentence2006In support of his position, he cites Burnett , 88 S.W.3d at 637 B 38; Song Sun Hwang v. State , 130 S.W.3d 496 , 499 B 500 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2004, pet. ref = d); and Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756 , 761 B 62 (Tex. App. C Austin 2001), vacated on other grounds , 119 S.W.3d 808 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Song Sun Hwang v. State
green
1 sentence2006In support of his position, he cites Burnett , 88 S.W.3d at 637 B 38; Song Sun Hwang v. State , 130 S.W.3d 496 , 499 B 500 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2004, pet. ref = d); and Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756 , 761 B 62 (Tex. App. C Austin 2001), vacated on other grounds , 119 S.W.3d 808 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Shankle v. State
green
1 sentence2006In support of his position, he cites Burnett , 88 S.W.3d at 637 B 38; Song Sun Hwang v. State , 130 S.W.3d 496 , 499 B 500 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2004, pet. ref = d); and Shankle v. State , 59 S.W.3d 756 , 761 B 62 (Tex. App. C Austin 2001), vacated on other grounds , 119 S.W.3d 808 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Erdman v. State
green
2 sentences2004In her motion to suppress, Woehst relied primarily on Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 3 However, Woehst also relied on the effect of the officer’s Transportation Code violation regarding the statutory consequences of refusing a breath test and, particularly, the influence that the violation had on Woehst’s decision to refuse to take the breath test. 2004In her motion to suppress, Woehst relied primarily on Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). [3] However, Woehst also relied on the effect of the officer's Transportation Code violation regarding the statutory consequences of refusing a breath test and, particularly, the influence that the violation had on Woehst's decision to refuse to take the breath test. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tate v. State
green
1 sentence1927Among them are the following: Tate v. State, 33 S.W. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.