green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 9×
13.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases ·
…it would be best for him to go ahead and make a statement" or "it would be better to get his business straight
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State Of Louisiana v. James Bishop
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
considering the admissible evidence concerning the palm prints, no rational juror could find those facts without also finding the ultimate fact of the defendant' s guilt. it is beyond doubt the guilty verdict in this case was unattributable to the erroneous testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thornburg, Jeremy Paul
he quantum of independent evidence necessary to corroborate the corpus delicti in a criminal prosecution relying upon the extrajudicial confession of an accused need not be great.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thornburg, Jeremy Paul
he quantum of independent evidence necessary to corroborate the corpus delicti in a criminal prosecution relying upon the extrajudicial confession of an accused need not be great.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jeremy Paul Thornburg v. State
he quantum of independent evidence necessary to corroborate the corpus delicti in a criminal prosecution relying upon the extrajudicial confession of an accused need not be great.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rogelio Pena Jr. v. State
it would be best for him to go ahead and make a statement" or "it would be better to get his business straight
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rogelio Pena Jr. v. State
it would be best for him to go ahead and make a statement" or "it would be better to get his business straight
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rogelio Pena Jr. v. State
it would be best for him to go ahead and make a statement" or "it would be better to get his business straight
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dennis DeWayne Ivy v. State
it would be best for him to go ahead and make a statement" or "it would be better to get his business straight
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
David Russell Duncan v. State
thus, when in the second trial or proceeding, one or both of the parties amend their pleadings, it may be that the issues or facts have sufficiently changed so that the law of the case no longer applies.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Louisiana Versus Charles R. Lane
(2×)
See State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1384 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hooks v. Workman
(2×)
See Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273, 1284 (Okla.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
(2×)
See State v.Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1384 (La.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Duncan v. State
See Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 42-43 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing that the "law of the case” doctrine does not apply to evidentiary sufficiency challenges), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 827 , 118 S.Ct. 90 , 139 L.Ed.2d 46 (1997) (citing Alexander v. State, 866 S.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1869 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994)); Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex.1986) ("Thus, when in the second trial or proceeding, one or both of the parties amend their pleadings, it may be that the issues or facts have sufficiently changed so that the law of…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Millien
(2×)
See State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1381 (La.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Deal
(2×)
See State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1384 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dixon v. State
(2×)
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 26-27 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994) (stating that the burden of showing relevance is on the proponent).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re MRR
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 19 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Dancy v. State, 728 S.W.2d 772, 778-79 (Tex.Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of M.R.R.
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 19 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Dancy v. State, 728 S.W.2d 772, 778-79 (Tex.Crim.App.), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 975 , 108 S.Ct. 485 , 98 L.Ed.2d 484 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Yarborough v. State
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 23 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patton v. State
(2×)
See Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273, 1280-81 (Okl.Cr.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); Williamson, 812 P.2d at 400 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ramirez v. State
(2×)
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 23 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 224 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stahle v. State
(2×)
See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 325 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 (noting that even clear statement by officer that person under interrogation is prime suspect is not itself dispositive of custody issue because some suspects are free to come and go until police decide to make arrest); Rodriguez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
See Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 23 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cer t. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Adanandus, 866 S.W.2d at 224 . .
cited
Cited "see"
Hooks v. State
See Hooks v. Oklahoma , — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Taylor v. State
See Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273, 1278-79 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (limiting admission of expert testimony when offered only to show that defendant did not possess intent to commit crime); Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993) (concluding trial court properly admitted expert testimony describing how rope tied as garrotte could be used as a weapon); Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1, 8 (Okl.Cr.1992) (concluding that expert was qualified to testify about battered w…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Garcia
(2×)
Lee , 05-2098 at pp. 44-45, 976 So.2d at 139 (allowing the admission of such evidence “particularly when the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged crime and uncharged offenses is so peculiarly distinctive one must logically say they were the work of the same person”); 69 State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 516, 521 ; see, e.g., State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1381 (La.1993)(other crimes evidence admissible where it showed similar distinctive handcuff ligature, overkill, |,^predominant use of a knife, and need for domination and control of the victims…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Coddington v. State
(4×)
“While expert witnesses can suggest the inferences which jurors should draw from the application of specialized knowledge to the facts, opinion testimony which merely tells a jury what result to reach is inadmissible.” Id.; see also Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 13 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1278 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). “[Wjhere the normal experiences and qualifications of laymen jurors permit them to draw proper conclusions from the facts and circumstances, expert conclusions or opinions are inadmissible.” Gabus v. Harvey, 1984 OK 4 , ¶ 18, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bland v. State
(2×)
See also Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273, 1280 (Okl.Cr.1998), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cardenas v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1871 , 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Phillips v. State
(4×)
See also Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273, 1280 (Okl.Cr.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Van White v. State
(4×)
See also Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 20 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1280 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). ¶ 87 Finally, Appellant argues that the trial court's failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication in the first stage precluded his jury from considering and giving effect to that evidence as mitigation against imposition of the death penalty.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guerrero v. State
See Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Evans v. State, 519 S.W.2d 868, 871-872 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). ‘While exposing a witness’s motivation to testify against a defendant is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right to cross-examination, and the defendant is allowed great latitude to show any fact which would tend to establish ill feeling, bias, motive, and animus on the part of the witness testifying against him, this right does not prevent a trial court from imposing some limits on the cross-examination into the bias of a witness.” M…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoyos v. State
These potential risks include “the possibility of undue prejudice, embarrassment or harassment to either a witness or a party, the possibility of misleading or confusing a jury, and the possibility of undue delay or waste of time.” Id.; see also Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cer t. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 *507 S.Ct. 1871, 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Castillo v. State, 939 S.W.2d 754, 758 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet ref'd); McKee v. State, 855 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Mann
v.
Oklahoma Alexander v. Texas Marek v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections Hooks v. Oklahoma Hallford v. Alabama Code v. Louisiana Beuke v. Ohio Chambers v. Texas Buell v. Ohio Conklin v. Zant, Warden
v.
Oklahoma Alexander v. Texas Marek v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections Hooks v. Oklahoma Hallford v. Alabama Code v. Louisiana Beuke v. Ohio Chambers v. Texas Buell v. Ohio Conklin v. Zant, Warden
No. 93-6750; No. 93-7505; No. 93-8029; No. 93-8205; No. 93-8329; No. 93-8405; No. 93-8550; No. 93-8585; No. 93-8717; No. 93-8736.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1994.
Blackmun.
Cited by 366 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (8) · Louisiana Court of Appeal (1)
Lead Opinion
Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Ct. Crim. App. Ala.; Sup. Ct. La.; Sup. Ct. Ohio; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Ohio; and Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.