Kotteakos standard (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Kotteakos standard in Texas

10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2021 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Ex parte Weinsteingreen
texcrimapp · 2014 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656, 665 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656, 665 (Tex. Crim.

33
Harris v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998It is also important to note that the appellate court does not "determine harmfulness of an error simply by examining whether there exists overwhelming evidence to support the defendant's guilt." Garza , at 930 (citing Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)).

1998It is also important to note that the appellate court does not "determine harmfulness of an error simply by examining whether there exists overwhelming evidence to support the defendant's guilt." Garza , at 930 (citing Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)).

22
Chapman v. Californiared
scotus · 1967 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–2021
2 sentences

2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim.

2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim.

12
Ovalle v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim.

2021In Chapman, the Supreme Court “fashion[ed] a harmless-constitutional-error rule” applicable to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21 , 22–24, to govern cases falling within the Kotteakos exception. 33 Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 788 (Tex. Crim.

11
King v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014See Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); King v. State , 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim.

11
Garza v. Stategreen
texapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Garza, 963 S.W.2d at 929 (citing Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 , 377 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)) finding that reversible error must be prejudicial under the Kotteakos rule).

1998See Garza, 963 S.W.2d at 929 (citing Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 , 377 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)) finding that reversible error must be prejudicial under the Kotteakos rule).

11
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1946 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 ; Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 (the standard for determining whether a conviction must be set aside because of federal *866 constitutional error is whether the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

1998See Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 ; Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 (the standard for determining whether a conviction must be set aside because of federal *866 constitutional error is whether the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

11
Ex Parte Fierrogreen
texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Garza, 963 S.W.2d at 929 (citing Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 , 377 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)) finding that reversible error must be prejudicial under the Kotteakos rule).

1998See Garza, 963 S.W.2d at 929 (citing Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 , 377 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)) finding that reversible error must be prejudicial under the Kotteakos rule).

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Lane green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1998E.g., O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 995-98 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995)(discussing at length "grave doubt" standard established in Kotteakos ); United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 , 106 S.Ct. 725 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)(quoting only "grave doubt" portion of Kotteakos analysis).

1998E.g., O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 995-98 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995)(discussing at length "grave doubt" standard established in Kotteakos ); United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 , 106 S.Ct. 725 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)(quoting only "grave doubt" portion of Kotteakos analysis).

21998–1998
Snowden, Rion Pheal green
texcrimapp · 2011
2 sentences

2021Although the Supreme Court has “appeared to move back and forth between relying heavily upon the presence of proof of guilt in its harmless error analysis and considering that proof as less central to the inquiry,” Snowden, 353 S.W.3d at 819 n.14 (quoting WAYNE R.

2021Although the Supreme Court has “appeared to move back and forth between relying heavily upon the presence of proof of guilt in its harmless error analysis and considering that proof as less central to the inquiry,” Snowden, 353 S.W.3d at 819 n.14 (quoting WAYNE R.

12021–2021
O'NEAL v. McAninch green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

1998E.g., O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 995-98 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995)(discussing at length "grave doubt" standard established in Kotteakos ); United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 , 106 S.Ct. 725 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)(quoting only "grave doubt" portion of Kotteakos analysis).

1998E.g., O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 995-98 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995)(discussing at length "grave doubt" standard established in Kotteakos ); United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 , 106 S.Ct. 725 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)(quoting only "grave doubt" portion of Kotteakos analysis).

11998–1998

Where else courts name it

DC 43 (1978–2024) TX 10 (1998–2021) VA 8 (2001–2013) NV 4 (2001–2023) CA 2 (1998–2014) KY 2 (2009–2009) FL 2 (1999–1999) MI 2 (1996–2014) WI 2 (1977–1987) CT 2 (2006–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check