59 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2026 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Klapesky v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Indeed, the affidavit requirement is “a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing,” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (emphasis added), and allows the trial court to conserve judicial resources and prevent fishing expeditions if a defendant fails to demonstrate the truth of the grounds of attack as well as reasonable grounds for believing error occurred, see Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 260 (Tex. Crim. 2025“The requirement of an affidavit is to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ and is a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing and as a matter of pleading.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. | 9 | 9 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19, 21 (Tex. Crim. 2007Motion for New Trial "As a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing, [a motion for new trial] must be supported by an affidavit specifically showing the truth of the grounds attacked." Martinez v. State , 74 S.W.3d 19, 21 (Tex. Crim. | 8 | 19 |
Reyes v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“The requirement of an affidavit is to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ and is a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing and as a matter of pleading.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. 2024“The requirement of an affidavit is to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ and is a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing and as a matter of pleading.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 18 |
McIntire v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“The requirement of an affidavit is to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ and is a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing and as a matter of pleading.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. 2024“The requirement of an affidavit is to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ and is a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing and as a matter of pleading.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 16 |
King v. Stategreen2 sentences2016King, 29 S.W.3d at 569 ; Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. 2007App. 2002) ( citing King v. State , 29 S.W.3d 556, 569 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 6 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2001“On the other hand, ..., in certain instances the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial that raises matters which are not determinable from the record.” Id. “ ‘[A]s a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new trial [must] be supported by affidavit, either of the accused-or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1913)). 2001“On the other hand, ..., in certain instances the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial that raises matters which are not determinable from the record.” Id. “ ‘[A]s a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new trial [must] be supported by affidavit, either of the accused-or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1913)). | 3 | 3 |
Jordan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015App. 1993). 74 / Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. 2013Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Wallace v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. 2008Wallace v. State , 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Garcia v. State, 291 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex.Crim.App.–Corpus Christi 2008, pet. ref'd). 2015Garcia v. State, 291 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (Baird, J., concurring) (noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are most appropriately developed “in the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus”); Rodriguez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (court of appeals erred in failing to consider affidavit, attached to defendant’s motion to suppress, in determining whether he had met his burden of proof regarding warrantless search and seizure); Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (noting, in 1991See also, Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, at 688 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). | 2 | 2 |
Vyvial v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Requiring an affidavit is designed "to limit the parameters *3 of the hearing that is sought" and prevent "limitless fishing expeditions." McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex.Crim. 111 , 10 S.W.2d 83, 84-85 (1928). 2001Requiring an affidavit is designed “to limit the parame ters of the hearing that is sought” and prevent “limitless fishing expeditions.” McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex.Crim. 111 , 10 S.W.2d 88 , 84-85 (1928). | 1 | 2 |
Rozell v. Stategreen1 sentence2026App. 2019); Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Colone v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Indeed, the affidavit requirement is “a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing,” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (emphasis added), and allows the trial court to conserve judicial resources and prevent fishing expeditions if a defendant fails to demonstrate the truth of the grounds of attack as well as reasonable grounds for believing error occurred, see Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 260 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Dotson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. 2009) (“Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.”); Dotson v. State, 146 S.W.3d 285, 301 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d) (“As a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing, the motion must be supported by an affidavit that specifically demonstrates the truth of the grounds for attack.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bearden v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 (citing McIntire, 698 S.W.2d at 658 ); see also Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Daniels v. State , 63 S.W.3d 67, 70 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref = d). | 1 | 1 |
Herrera v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (Baird, J., concurring) (noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are most appropriately developed “in the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus”); Rodriguez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (court of appeals erred in failing to consider affidavit, attached to defendant’s motion to suppress, in determining whether he had met his burden of proof regarding warrantless search and seizure); Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (noting, in 2002See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (Baird, J., concurring) (noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are most appropriately developed “in the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus”); Rodriguez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (court of appeals erred in failing to consider affidavit, attached to defendant’s motion to suppress, in determining whether he had met his burden of proof regarding warrantless search and seizure); Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (noting, in | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (Baird, J., concurring) (noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are most appropriately developed “in the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus”); Rodriguez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (court of appeals erred in failing to consider affidavit, attached to defendant’s motion to suppress, in determining whether he had met his burden of proof regarding warrantless search and seizure); Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (noting, in | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (Baird, J., concurring) (noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are most appropriately developed “in the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of habeas corpus”); Rodriguez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (court of appeals erred in failing to consider affidavit, attached to defendant’s motion to suppress, in determining whether he had met his burden of proof regarding warrantless search and seizure); Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (noting, in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2024“As a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing on a motion for new trial, the motion must be supported by an affidavit, either of the accused or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Crowell v. State, 642 S.W.3d 885 , 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. ref’d) (citing Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 ). 2024“As a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing on a motion for new trial, the motion must be supported by an affidavit, either of the accused or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Crowell v. State, 642 S.W.3d 885 , 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) (citing Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 ). | 7 | 2023–2024 |
Hobbs v. State
green
1 sentence2023In such circumstances, because an unrestricted requirement of a hearing on matters not determinable from the record could lead to “fishing expeditions,” the court of criminal appeals has repeatedly stated that, “‘as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing,’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new trial must be supported by an affidavit of either the accused or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Connor v. State
green
2 sentences1996Connor v. State , 877 S.W.2d 325 , 327 n.3 (Tex. Crim. 1996Connor v. State , 877 S.W.2d 325 , 327 n.3 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gibbs v. State
green
1 sentence1991In McIntire , the court held (footnote omitted): “As a matter of pleading and as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing [on a motion for new trial], keeping in mind that the purpose of the affidavit requirement is to limit the parameters of the hearing that is sought, we hold that an affidavit is sufficient if it demonstrates that reasonable grounds exist for believing that jury misconduct occurred. ...”[ 8 ] McIntire, 698 S.W.2d at 658 ; Gibbs v. State, 819 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.