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.
61 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reyna v. Stategreen2 sentences2024App. 2005) (quoting Rule 33.1(a) and describing it as “a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review”). “[T]he party complaining on appeal . . . about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of 11 evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.” Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177 (quoting Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331 , 335–36 (Tex. Crim. 2023The basic principle of both rules is that of ‘party responsibility.’” We recognized that “the party complaining on appeal (whether it be the State or the defendant) about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise application to the evidence in question.” The issue, we said, “is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court’s ruling is legally ‘correct’ in every sense, but wh | 17 | 29 |
In the Interest of K.M.S.green2 sentences2024App. 2005) (quoting Rule 33.1(a) and describing it as “a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review”). “[T]he party complaining on appeal . . . about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of 11 evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.” Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177 (quoting Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331 , 335–36 (Tex. Crim. 2023The basic principle of both rules is that of ‘party responsibility.’” We recognized that “the party complaining on appeal (whether it be the State or the defendant) about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise application to the evidence in question.” The issue, we said, “is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court’s ruling is legally ‘correct’ in every sense, but wh | 16 | 33 |
Bonilla, Ronald Antoniogreen2 sentences2023As a result, to complain about the admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence, the party “must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule [or statute] in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.” Bonilla v. State, 452 S.W.3d 811, 817 (Tex. Crim. 2019The proponent also has the responsibility to, “at the earliest opportunity, [do] everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule [or statute] in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.” Bonilla v. State, 452 S.W.3d 811, 817 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Rushing v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Cf., Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (stating, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Texas Rule of Evidence 103 “tire party complaining on appeal ... about a trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything possible to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.”); Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283, 285-86 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (observing that Article 4.18, which sets out the procedure to challenge 2009App. 2002) (stating, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Texas Rule of Evidence 103 "the party complaining on appeal . . . about a trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything possible to bring to the judge's attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question."); Rushing v. State , 85 S.W.3d 283, 285-86 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Golliday v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 2002)); 1 Stephen Goode, et al., Texas Practice: Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal, § 103.2, at 14 (2d ed.1993)); accord Golliday, 560 S.W.3d at 670–71. 2021This rule requires “the party complaining on appeal . . . about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence” to, “at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise application to the evidence in question.” Golliday v. State, 560 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Heidelberg v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 176-77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (also applying error preservation requirement with regard to Confrontation Clause argument); Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (to preserve contention for appellate review, appellate complaint must comport with objection in trial court); Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 335-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (party complaining on appeal of trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence "must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge's attention the evi 2012See also Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 176-77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (also applying error preservation requirement with regard to Confrontation Clause argument); Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (to preserve contention for appellate review, appellate complaint must comport with objection in trial court); Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 335-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (party complaining on appeal of trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence "must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge's attention the evi | 2 | 2 |
Saldano v. Stategreen2 sentences2012App. 2002) (party complaining on appeal of trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence “must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule [or statute] in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question”); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 (Tex. Crim. 2010This is true even though the error may concern a constitutional right of the defendant.'" (quoting Saldano v. State , 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179 ; see also Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Reyna , 168 S.W.3d at 179 ; see also Anderson v. State , 301 S.W.3d 276, 280 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Willover v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 , 845 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) ("Whichever party complains on appeal about the trial judge's action must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.”). 2005See Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 , 845 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (“Whichever party complains on appeal about the trial judge’s action must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.”) (quoting 1 Steven Goode et al., Texas PRáctice: Guide to the Texas Rules op Evidence § 103.2 (3d ed.2002)). | 2 | 2 |
Brock v. Stategreen1 sentence2023App. App. 2002)). 21 See also Brock v. State, 495 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have held that points of error on appeal must correspond or 30 Reyna is instructive. | 1 | 1 |
Broxton v. Stategreen1 sentence2011App. 2005) (setting out that the party complaining on appeal about a trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the court's attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question); see Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Marin v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279 ("Determining which category a right occupies will usually settle the question of procedural default in the context of a particular case.”). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Alfaro v. Stategreen1 sentence2008To satisfy the timeliness requirement, a party “complaining on appeal about a trial court’s admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence ‘must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.’” Alfaro v. State , 224 S.W.3d 426, 433 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting Reyna v. State , 168 S.W.3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Alonzo v. Stategreen1 sentence2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour | 1 | 1 |
Tanguma v. Stategreen2 sentences2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour 2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour | 1 | 1 |
Potier v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paredes v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Parades, the Court of Criminal Appeals found a Confrontation Clause argument on appeal not preserved by a hearsay trial objection. 129 S.W.3d at 535 . 2012In Parades, the Court of Criminal Appeals found a Confrontation Clause argument on appeal not preserved by a hearsay trial objection. 129 S.W.3d at 535 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence2020We conclude that Burke did not preserve these complaints, because he failed to do “everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application.” See id. at 177 (quoting Martinez, 91 S.W.3d at 335–36). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2017The party complaining on appeal must “do ‘everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the evidence rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.’” Id. (quoting Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331 , 335–36 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mays v. State
green
2 sentences2015Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) provides: “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which ... excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ... the substance of the evidence was made known-to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context’ within which questions were asked.” “The offer of proof may consist of a concise statement by counsel, or it may be in question-and-answer form.” Mays, 285 S.W.3d at 889 . 2015Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) provides: “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which . . . excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and . . . the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent 20 from the context within which questions were asked.” “The offer of proof may consist of a concise statement by counsel, or it may be in question-and-answer form.” Mays, 285 S.W.3d at 889 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lopez v. State
green
1 sentence2007Regardless of whether it is the State or the defendant, to complain about a trial court's admission, exclusion, or suppression of evidence, a party "must, at the earliest opportunity, have done everything necessary to bring to the judge's attention the evidence rule [or statute] in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question." Lopez , 200 S.W.3d at 251 ; Martinez 91 S.W.3d at 336 ; see Tex. R. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Valle v. State
green
2 sentences2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour 2007The issue, "is not whether the appealing party is the State or the defendant or whether the trial court's ruling is legally 'correct' in every sense, but whether the complaining party on appeal brought to the trial court's attention the very complaint that party is now making on appeal." Id. at 336 . [30] Alonzo v. State, 158 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) (Keller, P.J., dissenting to dismissal of the State's petition for discretionary review). [31] Hughes v. State, 878 S.W.2d 142, 151 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (error preservation is a "systemic requirement" that appellate cour | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.