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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oursbourn v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Article 38.22 establishes two types of jury instructions that relate to whether a jury may consider a statement made by a defendant during a custodial interrogation: (1) a voluntariness instruction under Section 6 and (2) a warnings instruction under Section 7.4 Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 173 (Tex. Crim. 2011HARM ANALYSIS Texas law allows for jury instructions on three different types of “voluntariness” issues: (1) a general instruction on voluntariness under Article 38.22, § 64; (2) a warnings instruction under Article 38.22, § 75; and (3) a specific voluntariness instruction for constitutional due process claims under Article 38.23.6 Contreras, 312 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Oursborn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 173-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). | 4 | 4 |
Contreras v. Stategreen2 sentences2011HARM ANALYSIS Texas law allows for jury instructions on three different types of “voluntariness” issues: (1) a general instruction on voluntariness under Article 38.22, § 64; (2) a warnings instruction under Article 38.22, § 75; and (3) a specific voluntariness instruction for constitutional due process claims under Article 38.23.6 Contreras, 312 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Oursborn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 173-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). 2011Contreras , 312 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Oursborn v. State , 259 S.W.3d 159, 173-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Butcher, Charles E. Iigreen1 sentence2020See Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13, 20 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences1985See also Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977). 1985See also Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hendrix v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1985See also Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977). 1985See also Collins v. State, 548 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 959 , 97 S.Ct. 1611 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
California v. Prysockgreen2 sentences1985The Court in that case stated that ‘the warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.’ ” 453 U.S. at 359, 360 , 101 S.Ct. at 2809 . 1985The Court in that case stated that ‘the warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.’ ” 453 U.S. at 359, 360 , 101 S.Ct. at 2809 . | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences1970See Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 481 . 1970See Hill v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 481 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1968I, therefore, concur in the reversal of this cause for the failure of the prosecution to demonstrate that the warnings and waiver required by the decision in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , were given prior to the admission into evidence of appellant’s oral confession which supposedly lead to the fruits of the crime. 1968I, therefore, concur in the reversal of this cause for the failure of the prosecution to demonstrate that the warnings and waiver required by the decision in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , were given prior to the admission into evidence of appellant’s oral confession which supposedly lead to the fruits of the crime. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.