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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Standefer v. Stategreen2 sentences2021COMMITMENT QUESTION In the first issue, Castillo argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask an improper commitment question in violation of Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. 2003See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 179, 183 (determining a question was a commitment question when defense counsel sought to ask venire members if they “[w]ould ... presume someone guilty if he or she refused a breath test on their refusal alone?”). | 4 | 5 |
Barajas v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Barajas, the Appellant sought to escape the limits of the commitment- question rule by asking, “Can you be fair and impartial in a case in which the victim is nine years old.” Id. at 37, 38 . 2015The court noted that if this type of question were permitted, then any commitment question could be made proper by beginning the question with the words, “can you be fair.” Id. at 41 . | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rivera v. State
green
2 sentences2009See Standefer , 59 S.W.3d at 181 (stating that “questions concerning a juror’s ability to consider the full range of punishment for a particular offense meet the . . . definition of commitment questions but are nevertheless proper”); Rivera v. State , 82 S.W.3d 64 , 66 n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). 2009See Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 181 (stating that “questions concerning a juror’s ability to consider the full range of punishment for a particular offense meet the ... definition of commitment questions but are nevertheless proper”); Rivera v. State, 82 S.W.3d 64 , 66 n. 2 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd). | 3 | 2009–2009 |
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.