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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reeves, Gary Patrickgreen2 sentences2015Because appellant objected to the omission of the instruction, the Alman-za framework instructs us that the judgment of conviction must be reversed if appellant suffered “some harm.” See Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). 2015Because appellant objected to the omission of the instruction, the Alman-za framework instructs us that the judgment of conviction must be reversed if appellant suffered “some harm.” See Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Gelinas, James Henrygreen2 sentences2013The Alman-za analysis is fact specific and is done on a “case-by-case basis.” Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 710 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). 2013The Alman-za analysis is fact specific and is done on a “case-by-case basis.” Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 710 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Almanza v. Statered2 sentences2010Id. at 311 ; see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). 2010Id. at 311 ; see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Smith v. State, 899 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet ref'd). 5 .The Mitchell court instructed the court of appeals on remand to apply the Almanza harm analysis to the trial court’s error of denying appellant’s requested instruction on the burden of proof regarding the extraneous offense evidence. 1999See Smith v. State, 899 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet ref'd). 5 .The Mitchell court instructed the court of appeals on remand to apply the Almanza harm analysis to the trial court’s error of denying appellant’s requested instruction on the burden of proof regarding the extraneous offense evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jennings v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 311 ; see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). 2010Id. at 311 ; see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Stone v. State
green
2 sentences1987The Almanza test was not applied, because the Court of Criminal Appeals, in Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (en banc), the case upon which this Court relies in its original decision, and a case decided after Almanza, in a similar fact situation, declined to apply the Alman-za test. 1987The Almanza test was not applied, because the Court of Criminal Appeals, in Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (en banc), the case upon which this Court relies in its original decision, and a case decided after Almanza, in a similar fact situation, declined to apply the Alman-za test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences1986Shoaf contends that since this error in the charge is a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution, as outlined in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), that we should apply the standard of harmless error review set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rather than the Alman-za standard. 1986Shoaf contends that since this error in the charge is a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution, as outlined in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), that we should apply the standard of harmless error review set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rather than the Alman-za standard. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
2 sentences1986Shoaf contends that since this error in the charge is a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution, as outlined in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), that we should apply the standard of harmless error review set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rather than the Alman-za standard. 1986Shoaf contends that since this error in the charge is a violation of his rights under the United States Constitution, as outlined in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), that we should apply the standard of harmless error review set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rather than the Alman-za standard. | 1 | 1986–1986 |