chain of custody requirement (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

chain of custody requirement in Texas

7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 3 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Hartsfield v. Stategreen
texapp · 2006 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See Hartsfield , 200 S.W.3d at 818 , wherein it was found the box had distinctive markings (the blood spatter) which was recognized by the officer, which was a sufficient authentication of the item. 11.

2010See Hartsfield, 200 S.W.3d at 818 , wherein it was found the box had distinctive markings (the blood spatter) which was recognized by the officer, which was a sufficient authentication of the item. 11 .

33
Ex Parte Gutierrezgreen
texcrimapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See id. art. 64.03(a)(1)(A)(ii).

11
Lake v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Lake, 577 S.W.2d at 246 (holding officer’s testimony who made arrest and seizure, along with testimony from chemist who made the analysis, was sufficient to establish chain of custody).

11
State v. Rossgreen
texcrimapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021Id.; see Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 855–56; Fain, 2012 WL 752652 , at *20.

11
Medellin v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Avila v. State, 18 S.W.3d 736 , 740 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (citing Medillin v. State, 617 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Tex. Crim.

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Davis v. State green
texapp · 1996
1 sentence

2024Davis v. State, 992 S.W.2d 8 , 10–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (“If the proponent is not able to identify the physical evidence through distinctive markings or the like, or if the evidence is fungible, as are drugs or test results, a chain of custody was required.”); George v. State, No. 02-23-00261-CR, 2024 WL 2971678 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 13, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Davis and collecting cases).

12024–2024
Avila v. State green
texapp · 2000
1 sentence

2020Avila v. State, 18 S.W.3d 736 , 740 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (citing Medillin v. State, 617 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Tex. Crim.

12020–2020

Where else courts name it

IN 47 (1972–2023) TN 40 (1999–2026) VA 34 (1984–2025) GA 28 (1986–2021) IL 22 (1991–2023) LA 20 (1988–2014) SC 13 (2004–2025) OK 13 (1984–2010) CA 11 (2001–2023) AL 9 (1994–2014) MO 7 (1975–1992) TX 7 (2010–2024) MN 6 (1976–2016) NY 5 (1977–2023) WA 5 (1996–2024) DE 4 (1987–2020) ME 4 (1976–2014) ND 4 (1979–2005) AR 4 (1995–2022) DC 3 (1994–2016) CO 3 (1999–2021) WV 2 (1977–1987) PA 2 (2008–2019)

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