43 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Almanza v. Stategreen2 sentences2021This brings us to Appellant’s last, but related complaint, that the trial court erred by instructing the jury in the disjunctive that it could find him guilty of indecency by sexual contact as alleged in Count Two of the indictment if it found that he had touched V.T.’s breasts or her genitals.7 As Appellant admittedly did not object to the jury charge, we review this alleged error under the familiar Almanza standard, first determining whether error occurred, and if so, whether the unobjected-to error caused egregious harm to the defendant’s case.8 Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171-74 (Tex 2015Compare Acts 1897, 25th Leg., ch. 21, p. 17 § 1 (“. . . which error shall be excepted to at the time of the trial, or on a motion for a new trial.”) with Acts 1913, 33rd Leg., ch. 138, p. 279, § 4 (“. . . and all objections to the charge, and on account of refusal or modification of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”). 4 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 . 2 short ‘egregious harm.’”5 Thus, it is only by embracing fundamental error—and labeling the requisite harm “egregious”—that this Court held that an unobjected-to claim of charge error is not forfeited by inaction. | 10 | 20 |
Barrera v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Barrera v. State, 982 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) (en banc). 2002Barrera v. State, 982 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) (en banc). | 4 | 4 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2014See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 309–10 (1991) (explaining that only in the case of fundamental or structural error is an unobjected-to error preserved for appeal); Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 344–45 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 (1991); Rey v. State , 897 S.W.2d 333, 344-45 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Rey v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 309–10 (1991) (explaining that only in the case of fundamental or structural error is an unobjected-to error preserved for appeal); Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 344–45 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 (1991); Rey v. State , 897 S.W.2d 333, 344-45 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. Crim. 2013Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Herron v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. 2008See id.1 Assuming, without deciding, that Richards was entitled to an accomplice- witness instruction, we will reverse only if the unobjected-to error caused “egregious” harm.2 See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Tolbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Tolbert, 306 S.W.3d at 779 (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. 2010See Tolbert , 306 S.W.3d at 779 (citing Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Pennington v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See id. (“It is clear then that a general objection which does not distinctly specify the claimed error in the charge is not sufficient to preserve error.”); see also Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (setting out the “egregious harm” standard). 2008See id. ("It is clear then that a general objection which does not distinctly specify the claimed error in the charge is not sufficient to preserve error."); see also Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (setting out the "egregious harm" standard). | 2 | 2 |
General Motors Corp. v. Irachetagreen2 sentences2006Motors Corp. v. Iracheta , 161 S.W.3d 462, 472 (Tex. 2005), cited by GM, in which the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s unobjected-to error in allowing the grandmother of the deceased plaintiffs to personally thank the all-Hispanic jury in Spanish was harmful. 20: Contrary to GM’s contentions, the introduction that occurred here is distinguishable from the grandmother’s comments in Iracheta . 2006Motors Corp. v. Iracheta, 161 S.W.3d 462, 472 (Tex.2005), cited by GM, in which the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court's unobjected-to error in allowing the grandmother of the deceased plaintiffs to personally thank the all-Hispanic jury in Spanish was harmful. 20 . | 2 | 2 |
Colburn v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Colburn v. State, Becerra v. State Page 6 966 S.W.2d 511, 520 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Soto v. Seven Seventeen HBE Corp.green1 sentence2012See Soto, 52 S.W.3d at 204 . | 1 | 1 |
Lam v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). 2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). [1] Brown, at 801 (analyzing the instruction in this case with the "improper-judicial comment scale in mind") (internal quotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). 2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). [1] Brown, at 801 (analyzing the instruction in this case with the "improper-judicial comment scale in mind") (internal quotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). 2003See also Garcia, 919 S.W.2d at 397 (any error in this instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); Ward, 72 S.W.3d at 418-19 (any error in this unobjected-to instruction did not rise to level of egregious harm); Lam, 25 S.W.3d at 240-41 (same). [1] Brown, at 801 (analyzing the instruction in this case with the "improper-judicial comment scale in mind") (internal quotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence1994Walker v. State , 823 S.W.2d 302, 309 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1989), aff'd , 823 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences1986See also Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); White v. State, 699 S.W.2d 607, 615-18 (Tex.App. Dallas 1985, no pet.). 1986See also Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); White v. State, 699 S.W.2d 607, 615-18 (Tex.App—Dallas 1985, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1986See also Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); White v. State, 699 S.W.2d 607, 615-18 (Tex.App. Dallas 1985, no pet.). 1986See also Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); White v. State, 699 S.W.2d 607, 615-18 (Tex.App—Dallas 1985, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Igo v. State
green
2 sentences2018Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 , 646–47 (Tex. Crim. 2015Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 , 646–47 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Allen v. State
green
2 sentences2012Allen, 253 S.W.3d at 264 & n.15. 2012Allen, 253 S.W.3d at 264 & n.15. 4 That argument focused on the boy’s response, “To go potty,” which he gave to the prosecutor’s question, “What do you use your privates for?” 5 Later, at the very end of the State’s rebuttal argument on closing, arguing appellant’s letter demonstrated his guilt, the prosecutor made the statements, “He did it intentionally. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
C. B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 766 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Walker v. State
green
1 sentence1994Walker v. State , 823 S.W.2d 302, 309 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1989), aff'd , 823 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Browning v. State
green
1 sentence1986Therefore, in light of Browning, supra, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to decide by review of the entire record whether this unobjected-to error in the court’s charge *535 resulted in “egregious harm” to appellant. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.