8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Wilson v. State , 938 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex. Crim. 2008Wilson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), abrogated on other grounds Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). | 5 | 5 |
Gomez v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding prosecutor’s argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (holding prosecutor’s statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding prosecutor’s statement that defense attorneys knew that a defendant accused of cocaine possession lived in a “crack house” was improper); Lopez v. State, 705 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, no p 2008See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 355 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 17 2004, pet. ref’d) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Pena v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Pena v. State, 554 S.W.3d 242, 252 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (holding that a prosecutor’s closing argument that purportedly struck at the defendant over defense counsel’s shoulder did not warrant a mistrial where the trial court issued an instruction to disregard the argument and strong evidence supported the certainty of the defendant’s conviction without the argument). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Specifically, Appellant asserts, “Striking at a defendant over defense counsel’s shoulders is impermissible, as it falls outside the generally permissible areas of jury argument,” citing Davis v. State, in support. 268 S.W.3d 683, 712-13 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Guy v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding prosecutor’s argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (holding prosecutor’s statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding prosecutor’s statement that defense attorneys knew that a defendant accused of cocaine possession lived in a “crack house” was improper); Lopez v. State, 705 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, no p | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding prosecutor’s argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (holding prosecutor’s statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding prosecutor’s statement that defense attorneys knew that a defendant accused of cocaine possession lived in a “crack house” was improper); Lopez v. State, 705 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, no p | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding prosecutor’s argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (holding prosecutor’s statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding prosecutor’s statement that defense attorneys knew that a defendant accused of cocaine possession lived in a “crack house” was improper); Lopez v. State, 705 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, no p | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coble v. State
green
1 sentence2008Id. 57 This stands in stark contrast to the cases cited by Davis and other cases in which the appellate court has determined that a prosecutor’s comment did strike at the defendant over defense counsel’s shoulders. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Motilla v. State
green
1 sentence2008Wilson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), abrogated on other grounds Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 2008–2008 |