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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Villarreal v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN., article 35.-21; McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1988Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex. Crim.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX. | 3 | 4 |
McCary v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN., article 35.-21; McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1978Art. 35.21, V.A.C.C.P.; McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). | 1 | 2 |
Standefer v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 183 (proposed commitment question asking jurors if they would presume guilt based solely on refusal óf a breath test would not lead to a valid challenge for cause because a person’s refusal of a breath test is admissible evidence that permits jurors to presume guilt). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Johnson v. State , 68 S.W.3d 644, 649 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence1993In Lewis v. State, 779 S.W.2d 449, 455 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1989, no pet.), the prosecutor said he struck an African-American prospective juror who wore a mustache. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2012Batson Challenge In his fourth issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of a prospective juror in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 1998The majority ignores the critical inquiry in Bat-son — that the minority prospective juror was within the strike zone, not that the State did not “think” the nonminority prospective juror would “be reached.” See Batson, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 . 4 Even if “reaching” a prospective juror were the test, it cannot be viewed as a positive attribute used to outweigh a negative attribute. | 2 | 1998–2012 |
United States Gypsum Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN., article 35.-21; McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1988Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex. Crim.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX. | 2 | 1988–1990 |
LeDuc v. Florida
green
2 sentences1990Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN., article 35.-21; McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). 1988Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51, 63 (Tex. Crim.App.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 176 , 62 L.Ed.2d 114 (1979); TEX. | 2 | 1988–1990 |
Crane v. State
green
2 sentences1991Crane, 786 S.W.2d at 344 . 1991Crane, 786 S.W.2d at 344 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1978Appellant contends that the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to instruct the jury that two witnesses were accomplice witnesses as a matter of law, (2) in finding a deaf witness was competent to testify, (3) in refusing to instruct the jury concerning evidence of threats to witnesses, (4) in failing to grant a mistrial after an officer testified that a confidential informer’s life had been threatened, (5) in admitting evidence unlawfully obtained after incorrectly holding it was obtained by consent, (6) in admitting hearsay evidence, (7) in allowing an expert witness to testify outside of the 1978Appellant contends that the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to instruct the jury that two witnesses were accomplice witnesses as a matter of law, (2) in finding a deaf witness was competent to testify, (3) in refusing to instruct the jury concerning evidence of threats to witnesses, (4) in failing to grant a mistrial after an officer testified that a confidential informer’s life had been threatened, (5) in admitting evidence unlawfully obtained after incorrectly holding it was obtained by consent, (6) in admitting hearsay evidence, (7) in allowing an expert witness to testify outside of the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.