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.
9 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jensen v. Stategreen2 sentences2011“Appellant must direct the court to the specific portion of the record supporting the alleged error.” Jensen v. State , 66 S.W.3d 528, 545 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Huerta v. State , 933 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). 2011See 541 U.S. at 59 (determining that, pursuant to the Confrontation Clause, an out-of-court ―testimonial‖ statement is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination). ―Appellant must direct the court to the specific portion of the record supporting the alleged error.‖ Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528, 545 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref‘d) (citing Huerta v. State, 933 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). | 7 | 7 |
Huerta v. Stategreen2 sentences2011“Appellant must direct the court to the specific portion of the record supporting the alleged error.” Jensen v. State , 66 S.W.3d 528, 545 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Huerta v. State , 933 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). 2011See 541 U.S. at 59 (determining that, pursuant to the Confrontation Clause, an out-of-court ―testimonial‖ statement is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination). ―Appellant must direct the court to the specific portion of the record supporting the alleged error.‖ Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528, 545 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref‘d) (citing Huerta v. State, 933 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). | 6 | 6 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Crowder, however, has not pointed 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2011See 541 U.S. at 59 (determining that, pursuant to the Confrontation Clause, an out-of-court ―testimonial‖ statement is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination). ―Appellant must direct the court to the specific portion of the record supporting the alleged error.‖ Jensen v. State, 66 S.W.3d 528, 545 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref‘d) (citing Huerta v. State, 933 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Dooley v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Dooley v. State , 999 S.W.2d 796, 797-98 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1998, pet. ref'd); Lape v. State , 893 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Lape v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Dooley v. State , 999 S.W.2d 796, 797-98 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1998, pet. ref'd); Lape v. State , 893 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||