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 2008–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edward George McGregor v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, an impermissible inference of 26 character conformity “can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 120–21; see also Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim. 2022Moreover, “[a]n impermissible inference of character conformity … can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 120-21 (citing Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 751 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)). | 2 | 6 |
Jabari v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Moreover, “[a]n impermissible inference of character conformity … can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 120-21 (citing Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 751 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)). 2014Second, the court must consider the extraneous-offense evidence for its “potential to impress the jury in some irrational but indelible way.”29 When the extraneous offense is no more heinous than the charged offense, evidence concerning the extraneous offense is unlikely to cause unfair prejudice.30 Moreover, any impermissible inference of character conformity can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.31 28 See McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90, 120 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (quoting Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 753 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no | 2 | 4 |
Lane v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, an impermissible inference of 26 character conformity “can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 120–21; see also Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim. 2015Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Blackwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 753 ; Blackwell, 193 S.W.3d at 15 (“The trial court’s instructions to the jury are a factor to consider in determining whether the jury considered the extraneous-offense evidence improperly, i.e., as character conformity evidence, or properly, as evidence to rebut a defensive theory or some other permissible reason under rule 404(b).”). 2012Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 753 ; Blackwell, 193 S.W.3d at 15 (“The trial court’s instructions to the jury are a factor to consider in determining whether the jury considered the extraneous-offense evidence improperly, i.e., as character conformity evidence, or properly, as evidence to rebut a defensive theory or some other permissible reason under rule 404(b).”). | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2014App. 1996) (“[T]he extreme degree of similarity between the two murders renders evidence of the first murder highly probative.”). 29 Wheeler, 67 S.W.3d at 888 (citing Lane, 933 S.W.2d at 520 ). 30 See Taylor, 920 S.W.2d at 323 (“[T]he first murder, being no more heinous than the second, was not likely to create such prejudice in the minds of the jury that it would have been unable to limit its consideration of the evidence to its proper purpose.”). 2014Second, the court must consider the extraneous-offense evidence for its “potential to impress the jury in some irrational but indelible way.”29 When the extraneous offense is no more heinous than the charged offense, evidence concerning the extraneous offense is unlikely to cause unfair prejudice.30 Moreover, any impermissible inference of character conformity can be minimized by the use of a limiting instruction.31 28 See McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90, 120 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (quoting Jabari v. State, 273 S.W.3d 745, 753 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. State
green
1 sentence2014App. 1996) (“[T]he extreme degree of similarity between the two murders renders evidence of the first murder highly probative.”). 29 Wheeler, 67 S.W.3d at 888 (citing Lane, 933 S.W.2d at 520 ). 30 See Taylor, 920 S.W.2d at 323 (“[T]he first murder, being no more heinous than the second, was not likely to create such prejudice in the minds of the jury that it would have been unable to limit its consideration of the evidence to its proper purpose.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Decker v. Hatfield
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.