8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2001 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Royster v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (op. on reh’g), the plurality of the court of criminal appeals set out the two-pronged analysis for determining when a charge on a lesser-included offense is required: “First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. 2001In Royster v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (op. on reh’g), the plurality of the court of criminal appeals set out the two-pronged analysis for determining when a charge on a lesser-included offense is required: “First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. | 2 | 3 |
Lugo v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). 1997See Lugo v. State, 667 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). | 2 | 2 |
Rousseau v. Stategreen2 sentences1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. 1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. | 1 | 2 |
George Cordova v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). 1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arevalo v. State
green
2 sentences1999Arevalo, 943 S.W.2d at 889-90 . 1999Arevalo, 943 S.W.2d at 889-90 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Charlton v. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
green
2 sentences1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. 1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hardy v. United States
green
2 sentences1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. 1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Parker v. Horton
green
2 sentences1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. 1997In Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666, 672-73 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919 , 114 S.Ct. 313 , 126 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), the court stated: In applying the second prong of the Roy-ster test, the trial court’s determination as to whether there is some evidence that raises an issue of a lesser included offense is distinct from the jury’s ultimate determination as to whether the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense and not of the greater offense. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lynaugh v. Cordova
green
2 sentences1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). 1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Dugger v. Miller
green
2 sentences1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). 1993The federal standard set forth in Cordova v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988), provides that a lesser included offense instruction should be given “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [a defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Cordova, 838 F.2d at 767 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hefner v. State
green
2 sentences1990Once more, appellant sets forth the requested charge but does not brief the points of error in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 74; Hefner, supra. Appellant fails to point out what evidence raises the issues, or how the evidence satisfies the two-pronged Roy-ster analysis to justify the submission of the lesser-included offenses. 1990Once more, appellant sets forth the requested charge but does not brief the points of error in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 74; Hefner, supra. Appellant fails to point out what evidence raises the issues, or how the evidence satisfies the two-pronged Roy-ster analysis to justify the submission of the lesser-included offenses. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences1985Moore, supra. In the instant case the testimony shows that appellant was familiar with the gun, that he had fired it three or four times before the night of the offense in question, and that he was unsure whether or not it was loaded. 1985Moore, supra. In the instant case the testimony shows that appellant was familiar with the gun, that he had fired it three or four times before the night of the offense in question, and that he was unsure whether or not it was loaded. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.