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.
46 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1913–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hess v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Moreover, although the State referred to Bartlett’s refusal during closing, it “did not emphasize the court’s instruction, focus the jury’s attention on that instruction, or exploit the instruction by placing the weight of the trial court behind it.” See id. 2009Moreover, although the State referred to Bartlett's refusal during closing, it "did not emphasize the court's instruction, focus the jury's attention on that instruction, or exploit the instruction by placing the weight of the trial court behind it." See id. | 3 | 6 |
In the Interest of K.M.S.green2 sentences2015See Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331 , 335–36 (Tex. Crim. 2008Id. at 335–36. | 2 | 3 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). 1986See also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Stiles v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). 1986Article 36.15, V.A.C.C.P., however, does not require precise wording in the requested instruction: “The defendant may, by a special requested instruction, call the trial court’s attention to error in the charge, as well as omissions therefrom, and no other exception or objection ... shall be necessary....” The requested charge must only be “sufficient to call the trial court’s attention to the omission in the court’s charge.” Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). | 2 | 2 |
Reyna v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Alanis’s associates *836 pointed guns at appellant’s mother and the other occupants of the vehicle while they were on the freeway. 9 Although appellant made an offer of proof and obtained a ruling on the State’s relevance objections, to preserve error on this issue, he also was required to “do everything necessary to bring to the judge’s attention the rule or statute in question and its precise and proper application to the evidence in question.” Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173,179 (Tex.Crim. 2007Also, the evidence before us is admissible unless the privilege is claimed, whereas the testimony in Reyna was inadmissible unless it met one of the exceptions. (2) In Reyna , we stated that the appellant did not do everything necessary to bring the judge's attention to the rule or statute and its application to the evidence in question. 168 S.W.3d at 179 . | 1 | 3 |
Saldana v. Garciagreen2 sentences1977Wagner v. Foster, 161 Tex. 333 , 341 S.W.2d 887 (1960); Saldana v. Garcia, 275 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1955, aff’d, 155 Tex. 242 , 285 S.W.2d 197, 200 (1957). 1977Wagner v. Foster, 161 Tex. 333 , 341 S.W.2d 887 (1960); Saldana v. Garcia, 275 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1955, aff’d, 155 Tex. 242 , 285 S.W.2d 197, 200 (1957). | 1 | 2 |
Helm v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Helm v. State, 295 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (“Although the State referred to Appellant’s refusal three times during its closing, the record demonstrates that the prosecution did not emphasize the court’s instruction, focus the jury’s attention on that instruction, or exploit the instruction by placing the weight of the trial court behind it.”). | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Abbottgreen1 sentence2020See Leonard, 171 S.W.3d at 457 . | 1 | 1 |
Prible v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Indeed, the Court of Criminal Appeals also stated that "anti-sympathy charges are appropriate in that they properly focus the jury’s attention on those factors relating to the moral culpability of the defendant.” Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 737 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bankhead v. Maddoxgreen1 sentence2012Bankhead v. Maddox, 135 S.W.3d 162, 163 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
McFarland v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 2000See McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); see also Rogers v. State, 549 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-7 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Ussery v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Ussery v. State, 651 S.W.2d 767, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. arts. 36.14, 36.15 (Vernon Supp.1993). 1993Ussery v. State, 651 S.W.2d 767, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. arts. 36.14, 36.15 (Vernon Supp.1993). | 1 | 1 |
TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N v. Villasanagreen1 sentence1983Wootan v. American Motorist Insurance Co., 570 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Wolf v. Moughon, 562 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978), aff’d on other grounds, 576 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1978); Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Villasana, 558 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Wootan v. American Motorist Ins. Co.green1 sentence1983Wootan v. American Motorist Insurance Co., 570 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Wolf v. Moughon, 562 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978), aff’d on other grounds, 576 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1978); Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Villasana, 558 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
United Savings Ass'n of Texas v. Vandygriffgreen1 sentence1983In United Savings Ass’n of Texas v. Vandygriff, 594 S.W.2d 163, 167-70 (Tex.Civ.App.1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), we held that a point of error was waived because appellant’s contention of error, as set forth in his motion for rehearing in the agency, was phrased in terms too general to call the agency’s attention to the claim in order that any error might be corrected. | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Moughongreen1 sentence1983Wootan v. American Motorist Insurance Co., 570 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Wolf v. Moughon, 562 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978), aff’d on other grounds, 576 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1978); Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Villasana, 558 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain
green
2 sentences2019In finding reversible error, the court there noted that counsel “focused the jury’s attention on the instruction and plainly misstated it[.]” Id. 2010Crenshaw notes that in Timberwalk, the court held that an erroneous instruction constituted harmful error where “there was a vigorous dispute at trial” related to the instruction and counsel’s closing argument “focused the jury’s attention on the instruction and plainly misstated it.” Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 755-56 . | 3 | 2010–2019 |
Wooley v. State
neutral
2 sentences2012App. 1998) (stating that the defendant must object to the charge on a defensive issue before he may be heard to complain about it on appeal); Wooley v. State , 162 Tex. Crim. 378 , 285 S.W.2d 218 , 219–20 (1955) (stating that if the requested charge was sufficient to call the court’s attention to error in the main charge, no further exception or objection to the charge is necessary to preserve error); see also Tex. Code Crim. 2012App. 1998) (stating that the defendant must object to the charge on a defensive issue before he may be heard to complain about it on appeal); Wooley v. State , 162 Tex. Crim. 378 , 285 S.W.2d 218 , 219–20 (1955) (stating that if the requested charge was sufficient to call the court’s attention to error in the main charge, no further exception or objection to the charge is necessary to preserve error); see also Tex. Code Crim. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Fambrough v. Wagley
green
2 sentences1971We believe the points as presented are only “no evidence” points that are sufficient to direct the court’s attention to the error relied upon, Fambrough v. Wagley et al., 140 Tex. 577 , 169 S.W.2d 478 (1943), and, overruling ap-pellee’s motion, we will consider the points. 1971We believe the points as presented are only “no evidence” points that are sufficient to direct the court’s attention to the error relied upon, Fambrough v. Wagley et al., 140 Tex. 577 , 169 S.W.2d 478 (1943), and, overruling ap-pellee’s motion, we will consider the points. | 2 | 1963–1971 |
Olsen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
green
1 sentence2021He argues that “the Commission’s counsel failed to draw the Court’s attention to these factors” and that, when he attempted to do so, “the Commission’s counsel objected, and the Court sustained the objection.” He then argues that, “if all these factors had been considered as required under the Rules, the Court would have found mitigating circumstances in the context of this matter.” See id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Almanza v. State
green
2 sentences2015“The defendant may, by a special requested instruction, call the trial court's attention to error in the charge, as well as omissions therefrom, and no other exception or objection to the court's charge shall be necessary to preserve any error reflected by any special requested instruction which the trial court refuses.” Id. 2015“When the defendant has leveled objections to the charge or has requested instructions or both, and the court thereafter modifies his charge and rewrites the same and in so doing does not respond to objections or 16 requested charges, or any of them, then the objections or requested charges shall not be deemed to have been waived by the party making or requesting the same, but shall be deemed to continue to have been urged by the party making or requesting the same unless the contrary is shown by the record; no exception by the defendant to the action of the court shall be necessary or require | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2015The state is required to diclose to the defense any "evidence" favorable to the accused within its possession, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 ,83 S .Ct . 1183 (1963). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schmidt v. State
green
1 sentence2007Schmidt , 232 S.W.3d at 68 . 3: Article 36.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no other exception or objection is necessary to preserve charge error if the defendant, by special requested instruction, calls the trial court’s attention to error in the charge. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ramos v. State
green
2 sentences1994Id. art. 36.15. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜: ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ In the present case, Bell submitted “requested instructions” in writing to the trial court. 1994Id. art. 36.15. * * * * * * In the present case, Bell submitted "requested instructions" in writing to the trial court. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Lazcano v. State
green
2 sentences1994See Tex.R.App.P. 74(p); Sanchez v. State, 854 S.W.2d 677 , 681 n. 1 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1993, pet. refused); Lazcano v. State, 836 S.W.2d 654 , 664 n. 2 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). 1994See Tex.R.App.P. 74(p); Sanchez v. State, 854 S.W.2d 677 , 681 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993, pet. refused); Lazcano v. State, 836 S.W.2d 654 , 664 n. 2 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Sanchez v. State
green
2 sentences1994See Tex.R.App.P. 74(p); Sanchez v. State, 854 S.W.2d 677 , 681 n. 1 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1993, pet. refused); Lazcano v. State, 836 S.W.2d 654 , 664 n. 2 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). 1994See Tex.R.App.P. 74(p); Sanchez v. State, 854 S.W.2d 677 , 681 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993, pet. refused); Lazcano v. State, 836 S.W.2d 654 , 664 n. 2 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
1 sentence1991Penry's background evidence was relevant beyond the scope of issue one, since the jury could "conclude that Penry was less morally `culpable than defendants who have no such excuse[.]'" Penry, 109 S.Ct. at 2949 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
red
2 sentences1990Id. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. at 843 . 1990Id. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. at 843 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Moughon v. Wolf
green
1 sentence1983Wootan v. American Motorist Insurance Co., 570 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Wolf v. Moughon, 562 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978), aff’d on other grounds, 576 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1978); Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Villasana, 558 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Minx v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Allgood v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Dowden v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Wagner v. Foster green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Saldana v. Garcia neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Petty v. State green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Pointer v. Texas green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Graves v. Haynes neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Coleman neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Coloniger v. State green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. Lester neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Parks v. San Antonio Traction Co. neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Scott v. Llano County Bank neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.