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 2 courts 1974–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Lopez v. State , 18 S.W.3d 220, 227 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mechlergreen2 sentences2015"All Rule 403 rulings are subject to three general considerations: 1) the trial judge should exercise his power to exclude evidence under Rule_403 sparingly; 2) the trial judge's discretion under Rule 403 is not an invitation to rule reflexively or without careful reasoning; 3) the trial judge may not exclude evidence merely because he disbelieves the testimony." State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435 , 443- 444 (Tex. Crim. 2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 1 | 2 |
Conner v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Thus, the credibility of the complaining witness was one of the basic issues presented to the jury.”); Miller v. State, 105 Nev. 497 , 779 P.2d 87, 89 (1989). 42 . 2009Thus, the credibility of the complaining witness was one of the basic issues presented to the jury.”); Miller v. State, 105 Nev. 497 , 779 P.2d 87, 89 (1989). 42 . | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hurlburtgreen1 sentence2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hurlburtgreen1 sentence2009See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 388 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g) (presumption under Rule 403 is that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect "unless in the posture of the particular case the trial court determines otherwise”); see also Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (“Rule 403 requires exclusion of evidence only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative value”); State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 443-44 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Cochran, J., concurring) (all Rule 403 rulings are subject t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garrison v. State
green
2 sentences1978Furthermore, in Garrison v. State, 528 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), we held that a prosecutor’s argument may not exceed the invitation of defense counsel’s argument. 1977Furthermore, in Garrison v. State, 528 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), we held that a prosecutor’s argument may not exceed the invitation of defense counsel’s argument. | 2 | 1977–1978 |
Twillie v. Pouncey
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 619 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Campbell v. State
green
1 sentence1974Campbell v. State, 492 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.