jury is reversible error (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

jury is reversible error in Texas

8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2004 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Martinez v. Stategreen
texapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. granted). 5 This Court has recently decided in the context of an article 37.07, section 3(a) reasonable doubt instruction that “[w]hen the term ‘reasonable doubt’ is used in the charge at the punishment phase, the court need not define that *806 term if it was previously defined in the guilt-innocence charge.” Coleman v. State, 979 S.W.2d 438, 444 (Tex.App.—Waco 1998, no pet. h.).

11
Coleman v. Stategreen
texapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. granted). 5 This Court has recently decided in the context of an article 37.07, section 3(a) reasonable doubt instruction that “[w]hen the term ‘reasonable doubt’ is used in the charge at the punishment phase, the court need not define that *806 term if it was previously defined in the guilt-innocence charge.” Coleman v. State, 979 S.W.2d 438, 444 (Tex.App.—Waco 1998, no pet. h.).

11
Bell v. Stategreen
texapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Bell v. State, 881 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Almanza v. State green
texcrimapp · 1985
2 sentences

1987In this instance, on remand, the Houston First Court of Appeals applied “the reasoning set forth in Almanza [v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) ], [and held] that no harm has been shown and fundamental error has not been proved.” A majority of this Court in Almanza v. State, supra, established new standards that are to be used in making the determination whether error in the trial court’s charge to the jury is reversible error.

1987In this instance, on remand, the Houston First Court of Appeals applied "the reasoning set forth in Almanza [ v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984)], [and held] that no harm has been shown and fundamental error has not been proved." A majority of this Court in Almanza v. State, supra, established new standards that are to be used in making the determination whether error in the trial court's charge to the jury is reversible error.

21987–2004
Robert Lee v. State neutral
texcrimapp · 1936
2 sentences

1985Minica v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 416 , 99 S.W.2d 934 (1936); Lee v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 230 , 97 S.W.2d 697 (1936).

1985Minica v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 416 , 99 S.W.2d 934 (1936); Lee v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 230 , 97 S.W.2d 697 (1936).

11985–1985
Minica v. State neutral
texcrimapp · 1936
2 sentences

1985Minica v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 416 , 99 S.W.2d 934 (1936); Lee v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 230 , 97 S.W.2d 697 (1936).

1985Minica v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 416 , 99 S.W.2d 934 (1936); Lee v. State, 131 Tex.Crim. 230 , 97 S.W.2d 697 (1936).

11985–1985
Thomason v. State green
texcrimapp · 1930
1 sentence

1942Thomason v. State, 27 S. W. (2d) 229 , 115 Tex. Cr.

11942–1942
Daniel v. Daniel green
texapp · 1929
1 sentence

1936Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 16 S.W. (2d) 303 .

11936–1936
Colorado &. S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe green
texcommnapp · 1922
1 sentence

1922App.) 238 S. W. 908 , the refusal to submit such question for find-, ing by the jury is reversible error.

11922–1922

Where else courts name it

NM 17 (2005–2025) GA 10 (1916–2023) CA 8 (1965–2023) TX 8 (1922–2004) IL 8 (2003–2014) FL 7 (1969–2012) MO 7 (1928–2017) IN 7 (1975–2002) IA 3 (1974–2001) TN 3 (1997–2001) MN 2 (1985–2006) SC 2 (1931–1985) AR 2 (1963–1989) AZ 2 (1979–2020) AL 2 (1967–1973) WA 2 (1986–2019) ID 2 (1998–2004) MS 2 (1983–2024) MI 2 (1955–1971)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check