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.
9 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rankin v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See id. at 713 ; see also Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 , 893–95 (Tex. 7 Crim. 2005Prude cites Rankin v. State , 974 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Devoe, Paul Gilbertgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 471 . 2015See Devoe, 354 S.W.3d at 471 . | 1 | 2 |
Gamboa v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574, 580 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jesse Beam v. Stategreen1 sentence2026“While ‘there is always a potential that the jury may be unfairly prejudiced by the defendant’s character conformity[,]’ ‘this impermissible inference can be minimized through a limiting instruction.’” Favorite, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5656 , at *36 (quoting Beam v. State, 447 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Martinez v. State, 527 S.W.3d 310, 326 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, pet. ref’d); see also Gonzalez v. State, No. 03-22-00287-CR, 2023 WL 7093815 , at *20 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding trial court did not err in failing to provide the jury with a limiting instruction at the time extraneous-offense evidence was admitted because appellant did not request a limiting instruction, and appellant’s inaction likewise waived error on appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
Hammock v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See id. at 713 ; see also Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 , 893–95 (Tex. 7 Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Varelasgreen1 sentence2013Jury Charge In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not providing the jury with a limiting instruction regarding extraneous offenses because the May 22, 2009 robbery of the convenience store was an extraneous offense. “[W]hen evidence of collateral crimes is introduced for one of the various purposes for which such evidence becomes admissible, the jury should be instructed that they cannot consider against the defendant such collateral crimes, unless it has been shown to their satisfaction that the accused is guilty thereof.” Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Lankord v. Stategreen2 sentences2013App. 2001) (quoting Lankford v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 442 , 248 S.W. 389, 389 (1923)). 2013App. 2001) (quoting Lankford v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 442 , 248 S.W. 389, 389 (1923)). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See id. at 879 ; see also Tex.R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.