case upon defense in Texas

43 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1892–2019 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.

Followed or applied (25)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ladd v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2016 2 sentences 2016Any potential juror who would not require the State to prove the individual elements of the charged offense if it had proven an unrelated sexual offense would be “chal-lengeable for cause under Article 35.16(c)(2) for having a bias or prejudice against a law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely.” See Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 558-59 . 2008See Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 559 (Tex. Crim.	2	4
Banda v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015 2 sentences 2015Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 (1995). 1999Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 , 115 S.Ct. 2253 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995).	2	2
Clark v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1986 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–2015 2 sentences 2015Clark v. State, 717 S.W.2d 910, 916-17 (Tex. Crim. 1992Clark v. State, 717 S.W.2d 910, 916-17 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 35.16(c)(2) (Vernon Supp. 1992).	2	2
Jones v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17] 2004Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
Woodkins v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1976 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1978–1988 2 sentences 1978Article 35.16(c)(2), V.A.C.C.P., provides that a challenge for cause may be made by the defense for the reason that the juror "has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof, or of the punishment therefor. " (Emphasis added.) In Woodkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 855 , we held, "[T]he appellant [has] the right to challenge for cause any juror who could not give the minimum punishment. 1978Article 35.16(c)(2), V.A.C.C.P., provides that a challenge for cause may be made by the defense for the reason that the juror “has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof, or of the punishment therefor.” (Emphasis added.) In Woodkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 855 , we held, “[T]he appellant [has] the right to challenge for cause any juror who could not give the minimum punishment.	1	4
Pierce v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1980 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1982–1988 2 sentences 1988Pierce v. State, 604 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Woodkins v. State, 542 S.W.2d 855, 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). 1988Pierce v. State, 604 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Woodkins v. State, 542 S.W.2d 855, 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).	1	2
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
King v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17]	1	1
Geesa v. Statered texcrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Maxwell v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17]	1	1
Moreno v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17]	1	1
Paulson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Barajas v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17] 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17]	1	1
Dewberry v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Davis v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Carpenter v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Proc. art. 35.16(c)(2).(providing that the defense may challenge a venireperson for cause if "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor"). [15] Tex. R App. P. 44.2(b); see Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding question of harm in voir dire context addressed under Rule 44.2(b)). [16] King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). [17]	1	1
People v. Cervantesgreen calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Kevin Manfre, Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen ca8 · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Drone v. Stategreen texapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	1
Riley v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
Felder v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Evans v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988	1	1
Mays v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987	1	1
Barrow v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987	1	1
Anderson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
Feldman v. State green texcrimapp · 2002 2 sentences 2015Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 745 . 2010Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 745 .	4	2010–2015
Standefer v. State green texcrimapp · 2001 2 sentences 2011The defense may challenge a venire panelist for cause on the grounds that "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely ... as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted....” Id. art. 35.16(c)(2). 14 . 2011The defense may challenge a venire panelist for cause on the grounds that "he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely . . . as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted . . . ." Id. art. 35.16(c)(2). 14.	3	2011–2011
Davis v. State green texcrimapp · 2010 2 sentences 2019Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 808 . 2017Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 808 .	2	2017–2019
Phelps v. Indiana green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 2015Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 (1995). 1999Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 , 115 S.Ct. 2253 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995).	2	1999–2015
Smith v. State green texcrimapp · 1978 2 sentences 1987C.P., which provides that a challenge for cause may be made by the defense if it is established that the venireperson “has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor.” A prospective juror who unequivocally demonstrates an inability to fairly and impartially answer the special issues submitted pursuant to the provisions of Art. 37.071, supra, like a prospective venireper-son who de 1982Woodkins v. State, 542 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Pierce v. State, 604 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Cuevas v. State, supra; Smith v. State, 573 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).	2	1982–1987
Reyes v. State green texcrimapp · 2000 1 sentence 2016The defense is also entitled to challenge a juror based on bias if “he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment thereof.” Id. art. 35.16(c)(2).	1	2016–2016
Murphy v. State green texapp · 2007 1 sentence 2008Id. art. 35.16(c)(2).	1	2008–2008
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for 2004Brosz died about twenty-four hours after she was taken to the hospital. [25] Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). [26] Ibid. (citing Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). [27] Davis, 872 S.W.2d at 749 . [28] See Drone v. State, 906 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, pet. ref'd). [29] Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [30] Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [31] 124 S.Ct. at 1374. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid. [34] See Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ("An accuser who makes a for	1	2004–2004
Stephney v. United States green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2002Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 529 U.S. 1070 , 120 S.Ct. 1680 , 146 L.Ed.2d 487 (2000).	1	2002–2002
Gardner v. United States green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2002Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cer t. denied, 529 U.S. 1070 , 120 S.Ct. 1680 , 146 L.Ed.2d 487 (2000).	1	2002–2002
Howard v. State green texcrimapp · 1996	1	1999–1999
McDonald v. Scott green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 1999Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 , 115 S.Ct. 2253 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995). 1999Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1105 , 115 S.Ct. 2253 , 132 L.Ed.2d 260 (1995).	1	1999–1999
Wheatfall v. Texas green scotus · 1995	1	1998–1998
Paton v. Federal Communications Commission green scotus · 1995	1	1998–1998
Lackey v. Scott green scotus · 1995	1	1998–1998
Wheatfall v. State green texcrimapp · 1994	1	1998–1998
David W. McKay v. Texas green scotus · 1986	1	1988–1988
McKay v. State green texcrimapp · 1985	1	1988–1988
Holloway v. State green texcrimapp · 1984	1	1987–1987
Moore v. State green texcrimapp · 1976	1	1987–1987
Cuevas v. State green texcrimapp · 1978	1	1987–1987
Rector v. State green texcrimapp · 1986	1	1987–1987
In Re WINSHIP green scotus · 1970	1	1984–1984
Smith v. State green texcrimapp · 1974	1	1984–1984
Huffman v. State green texcrimapp · 1970	1	1978–1978
Fender v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. green ill · 1971	1	1974–1974
Ysasaga v. State green texcrimapp · 1969	1	1969–1969
Pittmann v. Baladez green tex · 1958	1	1960–1960
Rose v. Baker green tex · 1942	1	1944–1944
Kirkwood v. State neutral texcrimapp · 1928	1	1931–1931
Blackmon v. Trail green texcommnapp · 1929	1	1929–1929
Roberson v. Hughes green texcommnapp · 1921	1	1922–1922
Hughes v. Robinson neutral texapp · 1919	1	1922–1922
Black v. Vaughan green tex · 1888	1	1892–1892

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 19.03 (11) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 20.04 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.021 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 8.05 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 43 (1892–2019) MI 10 (1891–1977) GA 6 (1907–2014) NY 4 (1893–1960) IL 3 (1894–2000) CA 3 (1885–1930) PA 3 (1819–1928) KY 3 (1911–1937) NC 3 (1937–1980) NE 3 (1929–1970) TN 2 (1937–2012) NJ 2 (1993–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check