77 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 20 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cooperwoodgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t 2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t | 3 | 5 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2024State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 111 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006) ("This voluntary manslaughter analysis is identical to the first, subjective prong required to justify a self-defense instruction."). 2024State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 111 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006) ("This voluntary manslaughter analysis is identical to the first, subjective prong required to justify a self-defense instruction."). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2022See Holley, 313 Kan. at 254-55 (implicitly operating under the faulty premise that self-defense can be a valid defense to the crime of aggravated robbery); State v. Beltz, 305 Kan. 773 , 780-81, 388 P.3d 93 (2017) (implicitly operating under the faulty premise that a self-defense may be a defense to the crime of attempted distribution of marijuana, if not considered a forcible felony); State v. Mitchell, 262 Kan. 687, 691 , 942 P.2d 1 (1997) (same, but distribution of cocaine). 2022See Holley, 313 Kan. at 254-55 (implicitly operating under the faulty premise that self-defense can be a valid defense to the crime of aggravated robbery); State v. Beltz, 305 Kan. 773 , 780-81, 388 P.3d 93 (2017) (implicitly operating under the faulty premise that a self-defense may be a defense to the crime of attempted distribution of marijuana, if not considered a forcible felony); State v. Mitchell, 262 Kan. 687, 691 , 942 P.2d 1 (1997) (same, but distribution of cocaine). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2020See Anderson, 287 Kan. at 334 . 2012See State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 331 , 197 P.3d 409 (2008) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 706 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1183 *975 [2006]); Anderson, 287 Kan. at 334 (stating clarified standard). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Crabtreegreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t 2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t | 2 | 4 |
State v. Osbeygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t 2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t | 2 | 3 |
State v. Fridaygreen2 sentences2026Mutual combat occurs when both parties enter the combat "'willingly or voluntarily; it implies a common intent to fight, but not necessarily an exchange of blows.'" McCullough, 293 Kan. at 976 ; see Friday, 297 Kan. at 1038 . 2024See State v. Friday, 297 Kan. 1023, 1036-37 , 306 P.3d 265 (2013) (if a defendant requests an instruction at trial, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant); see also State v. Burgess, 245 Kan. 481, 488 , 781 P.2d 694 (1989) (noting while general rule is defendant is entitled to instruction on self-defense in homicide case, 20 the facts and evidence reveal no error in refusal to give self-defense instruction). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chismgreen2 sentences2022See Mitchell, 262 Kan. at 695 (implicitly recognizing that in Kansas, the governing rule is that "self-defense is not available in felony-murder cases"); State v. Chism, 243 Kan. 484, 491 , 759 P.2d 105 (1988) ("Self- defense or accident are not defenses to felony murder. 2022See Mitchell, 262 Kan. at 695 (implicitly recognizing that in Kansas, the governing rule is that "self-defense is not available in felony-murder cases"); State v. Chism, 243 Kan. 484, 491 , 759 P.2d 105 (1988) ("Self- defense or accident are not defenses to felony murder. | 2 | 2 |
Villarreal, Rene Danielgreen2 sentences2019See Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. 2015); Villarreal v. State, 393 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App. 2012). 2019See Villarreal v. State , 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Childersgreen2 sentences2018The State points us to several "factually similar" cases in which Kansas appellate courts have upheld the refusal to give a self-defense instruction, to-wit: Knox , 301 Kan. at 672 , 347 P.3d 656 ; State v. Gayden , 259 Kan. 69 , 84, 910 P.2d 826 (1996) ; State v. Childers , 222 Kan. 32 , 49, 563 P.2d 999 (1977) ; State v. Bellinger , 47 Kan. 2018The State points us to several "factually similar" cases in which Kansas appellate courts have upheld the refusal to give a self-defense instruction, to-wit: Knox , 301 Kan. at 672 , 347 P.3d 656 ; State v. Gayden , 259 Kan. 69 , 84, 910 P.2d 826 (1996) ; State v. Childers , 222 Kan. 32 , 49, 563 P.2d 999 (1977) ; State v. Bellinger , 47 Kan. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Kirkpatrickred2 sentences2024A majority of the Kansas Supreme Court later reaffirmed this holding in 2008 in Kirkpatrick, including criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building in the category of forcible felonies precluding a self-defense instruction. 286 Kan. at 337 . 2018In State v. Kirkpatrick , 286 Kan. 329 , 184 P.3d 247 (2008), this court reaffirmed the holding of Bell and included criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building in the category of forcible felonies precluding a self-defense instruction. | 1 | 3 |
State v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2026But "[t]he doctrine of self-defense cannot excuse a killing done when the defendant willingly engaged in mutual combat unless the defendant has withdrawn in good faith and done everything in the defendant's power to avert the necessity of the killing." McCullough, 293 Kan. at 975 (citing State v. Barnes, 263 Kan. 249, 265-66 , 948 P.2d 627 [1997] [participation in mutual combat prevents satisfaction of the subjective prong of the self-defense test]). 2020See State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 975 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) (defining the objective prong of the self-defense test). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Salarygreen2 sentences2026State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 594 , 343 P.3d 1165 (2015); State v. Rodriguez, 295 Kan. 1146, 1152 , 289 P.3d 85 (2012); cf. State v. Qualls, 309 Kan. 553 , 557-58, 439 P.3d 301 (2019) ("Even if the only evidence supporting the defendant's theory consists of the defendant's own testimony, which may be contradicted by all other witnesses and by physical evidence, the defendant may have met his or her burden" to justify a self-defense instruction.). 2026State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 594 , 343 P.3d 1165 (2015); State v. Rodriguez, 295 Kan. 1146, 1152 , 289 P.3d 85 (2012); cf. State v. Qualls, 309 Kan. 553 , 557-58, 439 P.3d 301 (2019) ("Even if the only evidence supporting the defendant's theory consists of the defendant's own testimony, which may be contradicted by all other witnesses and by physical evidence, the defendant may have met his or her burden" to justify a self-defense instruction.). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hiltgreen2 sentences2024It further held the doctrine did not apply because the evidence against Turner was overwhelming, citing State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 200 , 322 P. 3d 367 (2014). 2024It further held the doctrine did not apply because the evidence against Turner was overwhelming, citing State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 200 , 322 P. 3d 367 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Statengreen2 sentences2024See 304 Kan. at 962 . 2021K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21- 5108(c) ("A defendant is entitled to an instruction on every affirmative defense that is supported by competent evidence."); State v. Staten, 304 Kan. 957, 965 , 377 P.3d 427 (2016) (defense theory of self-defense is affirmative defense in Kansas). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ultrerasgreen2 sentences2021State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 845 , 295 P.3d 1020 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 564-65 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). 2021State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 845 , 295 P.3d 1020 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 564-65 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Simsgreen2 sentences2012State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168-69 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998); State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 49 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977) (When a court looks at the evidence to decide on giving a self-defense instruction, “ ‘the test is not how much but is there any[.]’ ”) (quoting State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230, 237 , 167 P.2d 594 [1946]). 2012State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168-69 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998); State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 49 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977) (When a court looks at the evidence to decide on giving a self-defense instruction, “ ‘the test is not how much but is there any[.]’ ”) (quoting State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230, 237 , 167 P.2d 594 [1946]). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Simsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Burgessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dixongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andrewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andrewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ackwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Aldersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruttergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Meyersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sperry
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t 2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t | 4 | 2004–2024 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2012State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168-69 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998); State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 49 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977) (When a court looks at the evidence to decide on giving a self-defense instruction, “ ‘the test is not how much but is there any[.]’ ”) (quoting State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230, 237 , 167 P.2d 594 [1946]). 2012State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 168-69 , 960 P.2d 1271 (1998); State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 49 , 563 P.2d 999 (1977) (When a court looks at the evidence to decide on giving a self-defense instruction, “ ‘the test is not how much but is there any[.]’ ”) (quoting State v. Smith, 161 Kan. 230, 237 , 167 P.2d 594 [1946]). | 4 | 1977–2012 |
State v. Tyler
green
2 sentences2008John Tyler requested a self-defense instruction; Tyler was prosecuted for shooting a uniformed police detective who assisted in a warrant-supported raid on Tyler’s alleged crack house. *132 The district judge ruled that “a law enforcement officer executing a validly issued search warrant” could not, as a matter of law, “be an ‘aggressor within the meaning of K.S.A. 21-3211.” 251 Kan. at 626 ; see K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995). 2008With this evidence before the jury, Tyler’s testimony that he did not know the detective was a police officer and certain occupants’ testimonies that they had not heard the officers identify themselves did not justify a self-defense instruction. 251 Kan. at 626-27 . | 4 | 1997–2008 |
State v. Heiskell
green
2 sentences2011App. 2d 667 , Syl. ¶ 6, 666 P.2d 207 (1983) (A trial court should give a self-defense instruction supported in the evidence even if the defendant personally neither bolsters nor negates the defense.). 1983A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence from which a jury could conclude that, despite his denial, a defendant committed an act but did so in self-defense.” State v. Heiskell, 8 Kan. | 3 | 1983–2024 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora 2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora | 3 | 2015–2022 |
State v. Hundley
green
2 sentences2020The self-defense instruction presented at trial stated, in part: "'A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's immediate use of unlawful force.'" 236 Kan. at 464 . 2004Specifically, he claims Instruction No. 14’s use of the phrase, “until you are convinced from the evidence that he is guilty,” misled the “jury into believing that they should expect to be convinced of the defendant’s guilt.” In Wilkerson’s view, the word “unless” should have been substituted for the word “until,” because “ ‘until’ implies an expectation of a future event or occurrence which shall happen. ‘Unless’ implies a future event or occurrence which may happen.” (Emphasis added.) In addition to making this definitional distinction, Wilkerson points to State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461 , 69 | 3 | 1993–2020 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2018Justice Davis, writing for a unanimous court, concluded: "Criminal discharge of a weapon at an occupied vehicle, the underlying felony in this case, is considered a forcible felony. [Citation omitted.] As the defendant was charged with the forcible felonies of first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, he was excluded from a self-defense instruction by K.S.A. 21-3214(1)." Bell , 276 Kan. at 793 , 80 P.3d 367 . 2018Justice Davis, writing for a unanimous court, concluded: "Criminal discharge of a weapon at an occupied vehicle, the underlying felony in this case, is considered a forcible felony. [Citation omitted.] As the defendant was charged with the forcible felonies of first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, he was excluded from a self-defense instruction by K.S.A. 21-3214(1)." Bell , 276 Kan. at 793 , 80 P.3d 367 . | 3 | 2006–2018 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2026But "[t]he doctrine of self-defense cannot excuse a killing done when the defendant willingly engaged in mutual combat unless the defendant has withdrawn in good faith and done everything in the defendant's power to avert the necessity of the killing." McCullough, 293 Kan. at 975 (citing State v. Barnes, 263 Kan. 249, 265-66 , 948 P.2d 627 [1997] [participation in mutual combat prevents satisfaction of the subjective prong of the self-defense test]). 2026But "[t]he doctrine of self-defense cannot excuse a killing done when the defendant willingly engaged in mutual combat unless the defendant has withdrawn in good faith and done everything in the defendant's power to avert the necessity of the killing." McCullough, 293 Kan. at 975 (citing State v. Barnes, 263 Kan. 249, 265-66 , 948 P.2d 627 [1997] [participation in mutual combat prevents satisfaction of the subjective prong of the self-defense test]). | 2 | 2006–2026 |
State v. Knox
green
2 sentences2026See K.S.A. 21-5222(b) (permitting use of deadly force in self-defense); State v. Knox, 301 Kan. 671, 677-78 , 347 P.3d 656 (2015). 2018The State points us to several "factually similar" cases in which Kansas appellate courts have upheld the refusal to give a self-defense instruction, to-wit: Knox , 301 Kan. at 672 , 347 P.3d 656 ; State v. Gayden , 259 Kan. 69 , 84, 910 P.2d 826 (1996) ; State v. Childers , 222 Kan. 32 , 49, 563 P.2d 999 (1977) ; State v. Bellinger , 47 Kan. | 2 | 2018–2026 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t 2024See, e.g., State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 580-82 , 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (affirming the holding in State v. Crabtree, 248 Kan. 33, 40 , 805 P.2d 1 [1991], after reviewing much of the above precedent, to find the district court did not commit clear error when it failed to provide the instruction on the State's burden when the defendant raises an affirmative self-defense claim); State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 294-95 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), disapproved of on 18 other grounds by State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 344-45 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (finding the instructions as a whole covered the subject of t | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bellinger
green
2 sentences2024App. 2d 776, 785 , 278 P.3d 975 (2012), where we found a claim of accidental shooting undermined an assertion that the shooting was intentionally done in self- defense, we found giving a self-defense instruction would have undermined May's accidental shooting defense. 2018The State points us to several "factually similar" cases in which Kansas appellate courts have upheld the refusal to give a self-defense instruction, to-wit: Knox , 301 Kan. at 672 , 347 P.3d 656 ; State v. Gayden , 259 Kan. 69 , 84, 910 P.2d 826 (1996) ; State v. Childers , 222 Kan. 32 , 49, 563 P.2d 999 (1977) ; State v. Bellinger , 47 Kan. | 2 | 2018–2024 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora 2022The starting point for any alleged jury instruction error is our familiar four-part Plummer test: "[F]or instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favora | 2 | 2015–2022 |
Rene Daniel Villarreal v. State
green
2 sentences2019See Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. 2015); Villarreal v. State, 393 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App. 2012). 2019See Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. 2015); Villarreal v. State, 393 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App. 2012). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Lutter neutral | 2 | 2004–2008 |
| State v. Jacques green | 2 | 2003–2008 |
| State v. Jordan green | 2 | 1992–1995 |
| State v. Stewart green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Simon green | 2 | 1988–1992 |
| State v. Hill green | 2 | 1988–1992 |
| State v. Rodriguez green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Qualls green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Phillips green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Buck-Schrag green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Harris neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Jones neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Dinkel green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Barlett green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Qualls green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Haygood green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Gayden green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Rodgers v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Harmon green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bingham v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| McCracken v. Kohl green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Commonwealth v. Rittle green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Hendrix neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Sullivan & Sullivan green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Greene green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| St. John Tyler v. Michael Nelson, Warden, and Attorney General of Kansas green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.