48 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barefoot v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See id. 2008See id. | 2 | 3 |
Gollihar v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Id. at 250, 257 . 2009Id. at 250, 257 . | 2 | 2 |
Arline v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (Emphasis in original). 2007Arline v. State , 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (Emphasis in original). | 2 | 2 |
Howland v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See id. 2006See id. | 2 | 2 |
Everett v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Everett v. State, 707 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). 2002See Everett v. State , 707 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. 2005) (stating that State may comment on defendant’s failure to call certain witnesses and such comment is not impermissible attempt to shift burden of proof); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 674 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bible v. Stategreen1 sentence2024In this case, the trial court overruled the defense’s objection to comments on evidence outside the record, but it sustained the objection as to “burden shifting.” We have previously noted that “[o]ur courts have consistently held that the State may argue in its closing argument that the defendant failed to present evidence in his favor.” Trevino v. State, 474 S.W.3d 737, 749 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014, pet. ref’d).3 The State contends that under Trevino, the prosecutor’s complained of 3 Citing to Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234, 249 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Boulware v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“A failure to object timely waives any error in the admission of evidence and presents nothing for review.” Sullivan v. State, 678 S.W.2d 162, 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. ref’d) (citing Boulware v. State, 542 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Stategreen1 sentence2023“A failure to object timely waives any error in the admission of evidence and presents nothing for review.” Sullivan v. State, 678 S.W.2d 162, 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. ref’d) (citing Boulware v. State, 542 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bird v. Stategreen1 sentence2019The State refers us to Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65, 70 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2016On appeal, we review the trial judge’s conclusion as to whether there is a factual dispute between the jurors for an abuse of discretion.131 We apply this same standard in reviewing the trial court’s selection of testimony responsive to the jury’s request.132 “A trial judge abuses his discretion when his decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” 133 The test for abuse of discretion is not 131 Howell, 175 S.W.3d at 790 . 132 See, e.g., Brown v. State, 870 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Buckley v. Stategreen1 sentence2016On appeal, he notes that some intermediate appellate courts have enumerated eleven “indicia of reliability” that a trial court may consider in determining the reliability of a child’s outcry. 4 See Buckley v. State, 758 S.W.2d 339, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988), aff'd on other grounds, 786 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Paulson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Flowers v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided this issue in Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921-922 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 328 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rezac v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Rezac, 782 S.W.2d at 869–70. -9- 04-09-00634-CR CONCLUSION Because Quiroz failed to preserve error as to Officer Rosas’s opinion testimony that Quiroz committed a crime, and as to his claim that he was entitled to impeach Gover for bias, the trial court committed no reversible error. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. McFerringreen1 sentence2002In a footnote, the court overruled that challenge, observing that in instances in which a motion to modify a judgment is filed before a corrected judgment is signed, it is sufficient to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for 90 days after the corrected judgment is signed, "as long as the substance of the motion is such as could properly be raised with respect to the corrected judgment." Id. at 770 n.3 ( citing Clark v. McFerrin , 760 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied)). | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rousseau v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cumbo v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sanne v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lopez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franklin v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 352 . 2015Id. at 352 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Head v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Orona v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 129 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Page v. State
green
1 sentence2018The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objections and admitted the recording into evidence.1 In reliance on Page v. State, 125 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d), Appellant maintains that the recordings in this case were not sufficiently authenticated because (1) Ridgeway did not testify to the security system’s functionality and had little involvement in accessing, recording, and producing the video, and the office assistant would have been the proper witness for authenticating the recording, and (2) Abderrahman’s father handles the surveillance system, Abderrahm | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Howell v. State
green
1 sentence2016On appeal, we review the trial judge’s conclusion as to whether there is a factual dispute between the jurors for an abuse of discretion.131 We apply this same standard in reviewing the trial court’s selection of testimony responsive to the jury’s request.132 “A trial judge abuses his discretion when his decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” 133 The test for abuse of discretion is not 131 Howell, 175 S.W.3d at 790 . 132 See, e.g., Brown v. State, 870 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Buckley v. State
green
1 sentence2016On appeal, he notes that some intermediate appellate courts have enumerated eleven “indicia of reliability” that a trial court may consider in determining the reliability of a child’s outcry. 4 See Buckley v. State, 758 S.W.2d 339, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988), aff'd on other grounds, 786 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gilbert v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rogers v. State
green
1 sentence2014Context and Understanding of Appellant’s Complaints We note that Appellant cites Rogers v. State, 725 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.), as support for finding prosecutorial misconduct in this case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Green v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mosley v. State
green
1 sentence2006This case is similar to Mosley in that (1) the trial court did not take any curative action and (2) the prosecutor continued with his remarks after the trial court overruled the defense’s objections, making further reference to the fingerprint defense as a “rabbit trail.” Nevertheless, we also conclude, as did the Mosley court, that the third factor, the certainty of conviction without the misconduct , “weighs heavily in favor of the State.” Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dunn v. City of Tyler
green
1 sentence2002Similarly, in Dunn v. City of Tyler , 848 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1993, no writ), the court held that a motion for new trial relating to an earlier judgment may be considered as a premature motion, and thus be effective to extend the time for filing an appeal bond (then necessary to perfect appeal) for 90 days after the date of a corrected judgment when the substance of the motion was such as could properly be raised with respect to the corrected judgment. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Maddox v. Cosper
green
1 sentence2002In a footnote, the court overruled that challenge, observing that in instances in which a motion to modify a judgment is filed before a corrected judgment is signed, it is sufficient to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for 90 days after the corrected judgment is signed, "as long as the substance of the motion is such as could properly be raised with respect to the corrected judgment." Id. at 770 n.3 ( citing Clark v. McFerrin , 760 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Elbaor v. Smith green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Anderson v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Self v. State green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Woods v. Texas green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Hernandez v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Witherspoon v. Illinois green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Adams v. Texas green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Compton v. Henrie green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| McBride v. United Irr. Co. neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Culver v. Pickens neutral | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Golden v. Odiorne green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| T. C. R'y Co. v. Burnett neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.
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.