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.
10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Love v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 456 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). 5 extraneous offense evidence about a dismissed charge denied him a fair punishment hearing. 2025See Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 456 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). 5 extraneous offense evidence about a dismissed charge denied him a fair punishment hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Ladd v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Though it is not clear from his brief, appellant also appears to argue that the inclusion of Garfield on his jury deprived him of a fair punishment hearing. 17 The record reflects that appellant challenged Garfield for cause on the basis that Garfield “would require the defense to have the burden to show mitigating circumstances.” We have held that a venire-member is not challengeable for cause “simply because he would place the burden of proof on mitigation on the defense.” See Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). *93 In addition, the portion of the record of Garfield’s voir di 2007Though it is not clear from his brief, appellant also appears to argue that the inclusion of Garfield on his jury deprived him of a fair punishment hearing. (17) The record reflects that appellant challenged Garfield for cause on the basis that Garfield "would require the defense to have the burden to show mitigating circumstances." We have held that a veniremember is not challengeable for cause "simply because he would place the burden of proof on mitigation on the defense." See Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 559 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Boston v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Boston v. State , 965 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 1997, no pet.). 2003See Boston v. State, 965 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Renteria v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cantu v. State
green
1 sentence1998In Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), the court addressed the same issue in the context of a capital murder trial. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Turner v. State
green
1 sentence1997Turner, 897 S.W.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Meek v. State
green
1 sentence1995This case is more like Meek v. State, 851 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), and Marin than Roberts ; therefore, the Court of Appeals erred to rely on Roberts . | 1 | 1995–1995 |