contemporaneous limiting instruction in Texas

2012See Jones v. State , 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex. Crim.

2012See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 412 , 424–25 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2023See Lemmons v. State, 75 S.W.3d 513, 525 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). (holding that, given the short time between introduction of extraneous offense evidence and reading of charge’s limiting instruction—three or four hours—the trial court’s error did not affect a substantial right); Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 412, 424 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (discussing that the complained-of testimony was presented towards the end of trial, and that there was a “relatively short interval” between the introduction of the evidence and the trial court’s reading of limiting instructions

2023See Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tex. Crim.

2018Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tex. Crim.

2007The State concedes the failure to issue a contemporaneous limiting instruction was error, see Rankin, 974 S.W.2d at 713 , but argues the error was harmless.

2006The State concedes the failure to issue a contemporaneous limiting instruction was error, see Rankin, 974 S.W.2d at 713 , but argues the error was harmless.

2017See Rankin , 995 S.W.2d at 215 (error in failing to give contemporaneous limiting instruction regarding extraneous-offense evidence was harmless when, inter alia , the trial court submitted a limiting instruction in the jury charge and there was no evidence that jury formed an opinion regarding that evidence before it began its deliberations); accord also Salazar v. State , 222 S.W.3d 10 , 17 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2006, pet. ref'd) ("We note also that other courts evaluating harm resulting from the failure to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction have given significant weight to the time b

2008See Lemmons v. State, 75 S.W.3d 513, 525 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d) (trial court erred by denying defendant’s request for a contemporaneous limiting instruction on extraneous offense evidence).

2023See 995 S.W.2d at 215–16.

2017See Rankin , 995 S.W.2d at 215 (error in failing to give contemporaneous limiting instruction regarding extraneous-offense evidence was harmless when, inter alia , the trial court submitted a limiting instruction in the jury charge and there was no evidence that jury formed an opinion regarding that evidence before it began its deliberations); accord also Salazar v. State , 222 S.W.3d 10 , 17 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2006, pet. ref'd) ("We note also that other courts evaluating harm resulting from the failure to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction have given significant weight to the time b

2025See Robisheaux v. State, 483 S.W.3d 205, 218, 220 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. ref’d).

2023See Robisheaux, 483 S.W.3d at 220 ; see also Belcher, 474 S.W.3d at 848 .

2023See Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244, 251-54 (Tex. Crim.

2008App. 1994) (holding that failure to request limiting instruction was strategically valid decision to avoid calling further attention to extraneous acts); Webb v. State , 995 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (concluding that although A the best course of action is to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction . . . . trial counsel may have purposely decided not to request a limiting instruction to prevent further attention being drawn to the extraneous offenses @ ); see also Delgado v. State , 235 S.W.3d 244, 250 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Dennis v. State, 178 S.W.3d 172 , 181 & n.2 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).

2018See Dennis v. State, 178 S.W.3d 172 , 181 & n.2 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).

2017See id. at 838 ; see also Webb v. State, 995 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Although we acknowledge the Court of Criminal Appeals[’] holding that the best course of action is to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction, we cannot say based on this record that counsel’s failure to do so rendered his representation of appellant unreasonably deficient.”) (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex. Crim.

2008App. 1994) (holding that failure to request limiting instruction was strategically valid decision to avoid calling further attention to extraneous acts); Webb v. State , 995 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (concluding that although A the best course of action is to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction . . . . trial counsel may have purposely decided not to request a limiting instruction to prevent further attention being drawn to the extraneous offenses @ ); see also Delgado v. State , 235 S.W.3d 244, 250 (Tex. Crim.

2012Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 100 , 139 L.Ed.2d 54 (1997); Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 412, 423-24 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2012Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 100 , 139 L.Ed.2d 54 (1997); Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 412, 423-24 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2012Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 100 , 139 L.Ed.2d 54 (1997); Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 412, 423-24 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2012Jones v. State , 944 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 100 , 139 L.Ed.2d 54 (1997); Jones v. State , 119 S.W.3d 412, 423-24 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2014See Devoe, 354 S.W.3d at 471 ; Castaldo, 78 S.W.3d at 352 ; Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 114-15 .

2009Id.; Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345, 352 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2024See Ramirez, 815 S.W.2d at 643 ; Miller, 83 S.W.3d at 319 .

2023See Renshaw, 598 S.W.3d at 314–15 (“In civil commitment cases, evidence of uncharged sexual offenses, when it is used by experts, is ‘highly probative and helpful to the jury in explaining the basis of [the expert’s] opinion that [a person] has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.’”) (quoting Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d at 556 ) (brackets in original). –11– While the details of the allegation regarding RoRo arguably had the potential to impress the jury, the trial court provided the contemporaneous limiting instruction requested by appellan

2023See Renshaw, 598 S.W.3d at 314–15 (“In civil commitment cases, evidence of uncharged sexual offenses, when it is used by experts, is ‘highly probative and helpful to the jury in explaining the basis of [the expert’s] opinion that [a person] has a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.’”) (quoting Stuteville, 463 S.W.3d at 556 ) (brackets in original). –11– While the details of the allegation regarding RoRo arguably had the potential to impress the jury, the trial court provided the contemporaneous limiting instruction requested by appellan

2023See Robisheaux, 483 S.W.3d at 220 ; see also Belcher, 474 S.W.3d at 848 .

2023See Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 365 ; see also TEX.

2022Appellant submits that he must only establish that “some harm” resulted from the court’s failure to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction, citing Heigelmann v. State, 362 S.W.3d 763, 776 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, pet. ref’d).

2022Appellant submits that he must only establish that “some harm” resulted from the court’s failure to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction, citing Heigelmann v. State, 362 S.W.3d 763, 776 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, pet. ref’d).

2022Conversely, the State asserts that Appellant’s proposed “some harm” analysis applies to jury charge error rather than error from a trial court’s failure to provide a contemporaneous limiting instruction, citing Gonzalez v. State, 541 S.W.3d 306, 313 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2022Conversely, the State asserts that Appellant’s proposed “some harm” analysis applies to jury charge error rather than error from a trial court’s failure to provide a contemporaneous limiting instruction, citing Gonzalez v. State, 541 S.W.3d 306, 313 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2017See id. at 838 ; see also Webb v. State, 995 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Although we acknowledge the Court of Criminal Appeals[’] holding that the best course of action is to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction, we cannot say based on this record that counsel’s failure to do so rendered his representation of appellant unreasonably deficient.”) (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex. Crim.

2017See id. at 838 ; see also Webb v. State, 995 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Although we acknowledge the Court of Criminal Appeals[’] holding that the best course of action is to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction, we cannot say based on this record that counsel’s failure to do so rendered his representation of appellant unreasonably deficient.”) (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex. Crim.

2017See Rankin , 995 S.W.2d at 215 (error in failing to give contemporaneous limiting instruction regarding extraneous-offense evidence was harmless when, inter alia , the trial court submitted a limiting instruction in the jury charge and there was no evidence that jury formed an opinion regarding that evidence before it began its deliberations); accord also Salazar v. State , 222 S.W.3d 10 , 17 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2006, pet. ref'd) ("We note also that other courts evaluating harm resulting from the failure to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction have given significant weight to the time b

2016“Without a specific request for a contemporaneous limiting instruction at the time the evidence was admitted, and without the [trial] court’s denial of such a request, there is nothing for us to review.” Reyes v. State, No. 03-10-00082-CR, 2011 WL 2507002 , at *5 (Tex.App.-Austin June 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem, op., not designated for publication); see also Wilson v, State, 7 S.W.3d 136,144 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that when a trial court answered a defendant’s request for a limiting instruction by saying “okay” but did not give a contemporaneous limiting instruction, error was not preserved

2014See Devoe, 354 S.W.3d at 471 ; Castaldo, 78 S.W.3d at 352 ; Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 114-15 .

2012See Arana, 1 S.W.3d at 829 . *397 We find no harm in the admission of the entire tape without the contemporaneous limiting instruction or in the denial of the requested jury instruction.

2008See Walker v. State , 4 S.W.3d 98, 107 (Tex. App. C Waco 1999, pet. ref = d) (stating that even though counsel failed to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction, limiting instruction in jury charge negated any possibility that jury would have relied upon extraneous offenses about which appellant complained).