6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'CANAS v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Carriere v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin 2021The Court of Criminal Appeals, noting that the instructions did not include the criticized portions of the Geesa reasonable-doubt instruction, held that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including paragraph [3] of the Geesa instruction.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Fluellen v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Ochoa v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Torres v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 1 |
Paulson v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (State does not have to prove appropriate sentence beyond a reasonable doubt, so instruction on and definition of reasonable doubt improper at punishment phase); but see Escovedo v. State, 902 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (burden of proof instruction required at the punishment phase when required at guilt/innoeence phase), pet. ref'd, 934 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Escovedo v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (State does not have to prove appropriate sentence beyond a reasonable doubt, so instruction on and definition of reasonable doubt improper at punishment phase); but see Escovedo v. State, 902 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (burden of proof instruction required at the punishment phase when required at guilt/innoeence phase), pet. ref'd, 934 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Nguyenyellow1 sentence1997See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (State does not have to prove appropriate sentence beyond a reasonable doubt, so instruction on and definition of reasonable doubt improper at punishment phase); but see Escovedo v. State, 902 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (burden of proof instruction required at the punishment phase when required at guilt/innoeence phase), pet. ref'd, 934 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re CS
green
2 sentences2009Chief Justice Cornelius wrote that, after reading Paulson 's description of the Geesa reasonable-doubt instruction "it is obvious that the majority [of the Paulson court] believed the definition favored the defendant because, if the jurors properly applied it, they would be less likely to convict." In re C.S. , 79 S.W.3d at 622 . 2009Chief Justice Cornelius wrote that, after reading Paulson’s description of the Geesa reasonable-doubt instruction “it is obvious that the majority [of the Paulson court] believed the definition favored the defendant because, if the jurors properly applied it, they would be less likely to convict.” In re C.S., 79 S.W.3d at 622 . | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Woods v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 7 Concerning our statement that the instruction was definitional, this Court subsequently recognized that our holding “that the paragraph [3] language is definitional and therefore constitutes charge error has been criticized by our sister courts of appeals that have addressed the issue.” Jones v. State, No. 03-08-00126-CR, 2008 WL 3166316 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see, e.g., O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d) (noting that if paragraph [3] defined “reasonable doubt,” Court of Crimin | 1 | 2021–2021 |