65 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 , 588–91 (Tex. Crim. 2010Taylor v. State , 268 S.W.3d 571, 574 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2018“Rule 403 favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. 2018“Rule 403 favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex.Cr.App.2004) ("[i]n most instances, an objection will prevent the occurrence of the prejudicial event, and the failure to make a timely, specific objection prevents appellate review"). 2008See Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex.Cr.App.2004) (“[i]n most instances, an objection will prevent the occurrence of the prejudicial event, and the failure to make a timely, specific objection prevents appellate review”). | 3 | 3 |
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2007The record reflects that, prior to the hearing, Grubbs filed motions to exclude the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Anderson on the grounds that their testimony was unreliable and failed to meet the admissibility standard for expert testimony established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 592 n.10 (1993), and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 556-57 (Tex. 1995). 2007The record reflects that, prior to the hearing, Grubbs filed motions to exclude the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Anderson on the grounds that their testimony was unreliable and failed to meet the admissibility standard for expert testimony established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 592 n.10 (1993), and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 556-57 (Tex. 1995). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lairdgreen2 sentences2012Likewise, in State v. Laird,, a case that appellant contends supports his theory,- the issue was who was authorized to take a specimen of blood. 38 S.W.3d 707, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. refd). 2012Likewise, in State v. Laird, a case that appellant contends supports his theory, the issue was who was authorized to take a specimen of blood. 38 S.W.3d 707, 713-14 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). | 2 | 2 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). 2010See Rogers v. State , 991 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Beheler v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See id. 2003See id. | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2020But, where the admissibility of an in-court identification is concerned, “[w]e review the evidence adduced at the admissibility hearing as well as the evidence adduced at trial.” Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 792 (citing Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. 2013Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263 , 272 n.13 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 5 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2018When determining the admissibility under rule 403 for autopsy photographs, we consider the following factors: “the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black-and-white, whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is clothed or naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other circumstances unique to the individual case.” Williams, 301 S.W.3d at 690 . 2018When determining the admissibility under rule 403 for autopsy photographs, we consider the following factors: "the number of exhibits offered, their gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black-and-white, whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is clothed or naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other circumstances unique to the individual case." Williams v. State , 301 S.W.3d 675 , 690 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 4 |
Balderas v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Id. at 792 . 2020But, where the admissibility of an in-court identification is concerned, “[w]e review the evidence adduced at the admissibility hearing as well as the evidence adduced at trial.” Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 792 (citing Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
Ethington v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See French v. State, No. 05-99-01015-CR, 2000 WL 102719 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (“[A]lthough appellant objected when the blood test documents were finally offered into evidence and later raised untimely objections to Forrester‟s testimony, he failed to object to Forrester‟s testimony of the testing results at 5 the time such evidence was presented.”) (citing Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. 1996Id. at 859 . | 1 | 2 |
Carmell v. Texasgreen2 sentences2024“Evidence admissibility rules do not go to the general issue of guilt, nor to whether a conviction, as a matter of law, may be sustained.” 60 While prosecutors may satisfy various evidentiary rules, “this says absolutely nothing about whether they have introduced a quantum of evidence sufficient to convict the offender.” 61 Legal sufficiency is a higher burden, and is a distinctly separate inquiry from an admissibility challenge. 62 Unlike evidentiary claims, legal sufficiency arguments do not need to be preserved. 63 And requiring the defense to 59 Curlee, 620 S.W.3d at 785. 60 Carmell v. Tex 2024“Evidence admissibility rules do not go to the general issue of guilt, nor to whether a conviction, as a matter of law, may be sustained.” 60 While prosecutors may satisfy various evidentiary rules, “this says absolutely nothing about whether they have introduced a quantum of evidence sufficient to convict the offender.” 61 Legal sufficiency is a higher burden, and is a distinctly separate inquiry from an admissibility challenge. 62 Unlike evidentiary claims, legal sufficiency arguments do not need to be preserved. 63 And requiring the defense to 59 Curlee, 620 S.W.3d at 785. 60 Carmell v. Tex | 1 | 1 |
Moore, Jammie Leegreen1 sentence2024“Evidence admissibility rules do not go to the general issue of guilt, nor to whether a conviction, as a matter of law, may be sustained.” 60 While prosecutors may satisfy various evidentiary rules, “this says absolutely nothing about whether they have introduced a quantum of evidence sufficient to convict the offender.” 61 Legal sufficiency is a higher burden, and is a distinctly separate inquiry from an admissibility challenge. 62 Unlike evidentiary claims, legal sufficiency arguments do not need to be preserved. 63 And requiring the defense to 59 Curlee, 620 S.W.3d at 785. 60 Carmell v. Tex | 1 | 1 |
Carmichael v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Carmichael, 505 S.W.3d at 103 . –15– prosecution of child molestation. | 1 | 1 |
Raymond Lumsden v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Lumsden v. State, 564 S.W.3d 858, 881 (Tex.App--Fort Worth 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 2018 , (2019), citing Thomason v. State, No. 07-97-00146-CR, 1998 WL 761883 , at *7 (Tex.App--Amarillo Nov. 2, 1998, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). | 1 | 1 |
Barley v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27, 33 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Catrina Maldonado v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Maldonado, 452 S.W.3d at 904–05 (photographs which took three pages’ worth of testimony to develop in a three-hundred-page record was a “neutral” factor in the admissibility analysis). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Iduartegreen1 sentence2016See id. at 415 ; see also State v. Iduarte, 268 S.W.3d 544, 551-52 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (in aggravated assault of peace officer case, suppression of officer’s testimony was improper where the evidentiary issue turned on the trial court’s finding that police officer’s testimony that defendant pointed a gun at him was not credible). | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See id. at 415 ; see also State v. Iduarte, 268 S.W.3d 544, 551-52 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (in aggravated assault of peace officer case, suppression of officer’s testimony was improper where the evidentiary issue turned on the trial court’s finding that police officer’s testimony that defendant pointed a gun at him was not credible). | 1 | 1 |
| Roderic R. McDowell v. Pernell Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Akeem Staffordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sapata v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aaron Glenn Haygood v. Margarita Garza De Escabedogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Norris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John E. Irvin and Thomas E. Pastorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Falcetta v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cole v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Joyce Elaine Polasekgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Woodall v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Neil v. Biggersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rogers v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sv v. Rvgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ambrosiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Plante v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nenno v. State
green
2 sentences2013In Nenno , we explained that the relevant factors for validating expert testimony predicated on "soft sciences" include "(1) whether the field of expertise is a legitimate one, (2) whether the subject matter of the expert's testimony is within the scope of that field, and (3) whether the expert's testimony properly relies upon and/or utilizes the principles involved in the field." See Nenno , 970 S.W.2d at 561 . 2013In Nenno, we explained that the relevant factors for validating expert testimony predicated on “soft sciences” include “(1) whether the field of expertise is a legitimate one, (2) whether the subject matter of the expert’s testimony is within the scope of that field, and (3) whether the expert’s testimony properly relies upon and/or utilizes the principles involved in the field.” See Nenno, 970 S.W.2d at 561 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007The record reflects that, prior to the hearing, Grubbs filed motions to exclude the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Anderson on the grounds that their testimony was unreliable and failed to meet the admissibility standard for expert testimony established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 592 n.10 (1993), and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 556-57 (Tex. 1995). 2007The record reflects that, prior to the hearing, Grubbs filed motions to exclude the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Anderson on the grounds that their testimony was unreliable and failed to meet the admissibility standard for expert testimony established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 592 n.10 (1993), and adopted by the Texas Supreme Court in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 556-57 (Tex. 1995). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Bourjaily v. United States
green
2 sentences2004We stated: In Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987), the United States Supreme Court concluded that all preliminary fact findings under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) are subject to the preponderance of the evidence (i.e., “more probable than not”) burden of persuasion. 2004We stated: In Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987), the United States Supreme Court concluded that all preliminary fact findings under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) are subject to the preponderance of the evidence (i.e., “more probable than not”) burden of persuasion. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1999Arguably, because extraneous sex acts between the complainant and the defendant are not admissible until the defendant denies the act or undermines the credibility of the complainant in some fashion, this narrow “exception” simply follows the admissibility analysis of Williams [v. State ], 662 S.W.2d 344 [ (Tex.Crim.App.1984) ]. 1985Imwinkelried, supra; Notes, supra. Arguably, because extraneous sex acts between the complainant and the defendant are not admissible until the defendant denies the act or undermines the credibility of the complainant in some fashion, this narrow "exception" simply follows the admissibility analysis of Williams, 662 S.W.2d 344 . | 2 | 1985–1999 |
Solomon C. Curtis v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, Cora A. Geiger and Elizabeth G. Delaney
green
2 sentences1978Concerning the federal rule, the court had this to say: "The only case cited by plaintiff concerning the admissibility of a rule adopted by a regulatory agency subsequent to the injury of which plaintiff complains is Curtis v. District of Columbia, 124 U.S. App.D.C. 241, 363 F.2d 973 (1966). 1978Concerning the federal rule, the court had this- to say: “The only case cited by plaintiff concerning the admissibility of a rule adopted by a regulatory agency subsequent to the injury of which plaintiff complains is Curtis v. District of Columbia, 124 U.S. App.D.C. 241, 363 F.2d 973 (1966). | 2 | 1976–1978 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2024“Evidence admissibility rules do not go to the general issue of guilt, nor to whether a conviction, as a matter of law, may be sustained.” 60 While prosecutors may satisfy various evidentiary rules, “this says absolutely nothing about whether they have introduced a quantum of evidence sufficient to convict the offender.” 61 Legal sufficiency is a higher burden, and is a distinctly separate inquiry from an admissibility challenge. 62 Unlike evidentiary claims, legal sufficiency arguments do not need to be preserved. 63 And requiring the defense to 59 Curlee, 620 S.W.3d at 785. 60 Carmell v. Tex | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rhomer v. State
green
1 sentence2020Because a pathologist must interpret data and frequently cannot reach essential conclusions with mathematical precision, we hold that the admissibility standard from Nenno may apply to the expert testimony of a pathologist.”) The Nenno test asks whether “(1) the field of expertise is a legitimate one, (2) the subject matter of the expert’s testimony is within the scope of that field, and (3) the expert’s testimony properly relies upon and/or utilizes the principles involved in the field.” Rhomer, 569 S.W.3d at 671 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Burlison v. Angus
green
1 sentence2019Lumsden v. State, 564 S.W.3d 858, 881 (Tex.App--Fort Worth 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 2018 , (2019), citing Thomason v. State, No. 07-97-00146-CR, 1998 WL 761883 , at *7 (Tex.App--Amarillo Nov. 2, 1998, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
1 sentence2016Therefore, we limit our discussion to the (1) test results from Young’s urine specimen, and (2) Young’s purportedly incriminating statements made to hospital personnel allegedly overheard by law enforcement. 4 Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). 5 State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Villarreal, David
green
2 sentences2016Officer Little also testified that he could “smell the aroma of PCP emitting from [Young’s] body and [] breath.” The trial court entered an “Order on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress” wherein the trial court denied the motion to suppress and included findings as follows: Pursuant to the parties’ joint request, the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s suppression motion does not encompass the admissibility of test results from the mandatory blood draw by hospital personnel at the behest of law enforcement due to the fact the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted the State’s motion for rehearing in 2016Therefore, we limit our discussion to the (1) test results from Young’s urine specimen, and (2) Young’s purportedly incriminating statements made to hospital personnel allegedly overheard by law enforcement. 4 Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). 5 State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Reyna v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lucas v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Vela v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Schmerber v. California green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Mata v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Mechler green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Morgan v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.