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.
67 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 2002–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018We will not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. 2018We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” See id. (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. | 28 | 30 |
Schutz v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). 2005Appellate courts will not overturn a conviction for non-constitutional error if the court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly. [3] Schutz v. State , 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 6 |
Barshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. Crim. 2018We will not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly.” Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 18 |
Hankins v. Stategreen2 sentences2016App. 1998)); Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref’d) (“[W]e consider the entire record, including testimony, physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, the State’s theory, the defensive theory, and closing arguments.”). 2015We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)); Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. ref'd) (“[W]e consider the entire record, including testimony, physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, the State’s theory, the defensive theory, and closing arguments.”). | 4 | 4 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 2014Further, we cannot overturn a conviction for non-constitutional error unless the error affected appellant’s “substantial rights.” Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 6 |
Morales v. Stategreen2 sentences2018We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” See id. (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. 2016We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). | 2 | 8 |
Burnett v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 637 . 2018Id. at 94. “‘Grave doubt’ means that ‘in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Id. (quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2004A conviction for non-constitutional error will not be overturned if an appellate court has "fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect." Id. (quoting Johnson v. State , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. 2004A conviction for non-constitutional error will not be overturned if an appellate court has “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). | 1 | 5 |
Motilla v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 , 355–56 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Solomon v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bagheri v. Stategreen1 sentence2017The erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony is non-constitutional error.43 We may not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error unless the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.44 “A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and 41 Mata, 46 S.W.3d at 916 . 42 Id. 43 Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 762-63 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. McBridegreen1 sentence2016We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 9 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015An evidentiary doctrine heavily relied upon by the Court in its analysis of the record for harm was that: “Improper admission of evidence is not reversible error if other unchallenged evidence proves the same facts.” Akin, id., at 14.To support this as a statement of law the Court cites as follows: “Murphy v. State, 12-07-00368-CR, 2009 WL 2450990 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 12, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Warr, 418 S.W.3d at 9 |Page 621 (citing Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Umoja v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Schutz v. State , 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ; Davis , 22 S.W.3d at 12 ; Umoja v. State , 965 S.W.2d 3, 11 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth, 1997, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Schutz v. State , 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ; Davis , 22 S.W.3d at 12 ; Umoja v. State , 965 S.W.2d 3, 11 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth, 1997, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Bourque v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Garcia , 126 S.W.3d at 927 ; Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 677 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jabari v. State
green
2 sentences2016We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 9 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. 2015We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error.if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not .influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). | 9 | 2010–2016 |
Mata v. State
green
2 sentences2017The erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony is non-constitutional error.43 We may not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error unless the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.44 “A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and 41 Mata, 46 S.W.3d at 916 . 42 Id. 43 Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 762-63 (Tex. Crim. 2017The erroneous admission of retrograde extrapolation testimony is non-constitutional error.43 We may not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error unless the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.44 “A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and 41 Mata, 46 S.W.3d at 916 . 42 Id. 43 Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 762-63 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Roger Dale Warr v. State
green
1 sentence2015An evidentiary doctrine heavily relied upon by the Court in its analysis of the record for harm was that: “Improper admission of evidence is not reversible error if other unchallenged evidence proves the same facts.” Akin, id., at 14.To support this as a statement of law the Court cites as follows: “Murphy v. State, 12-07-00368-CR, 2009 WL 2450990 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 12, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Warr, 418 S.W.3d at 9 |Page 621 (citing Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.