Skip to main content

Martinez v. State

Citations

  • 313 S.W.3d 358
  • 2009 WL 2961266

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that in light of the evidence of Martinez’s guilt of aggravated robbery and criminal history, the evidence of his 27 unadjudicated offenses did not make the case for punishment clearly more persuasive
  • holding that trial court has this duty regardless of whether defendant requests instruction
  • holding that “maximum punishment alone does not indicate egregious harm” and that “[t]here is no 16 egregious harm if the jury would still have assessed a life sentence, even if properly instructed . . . .”
  • holding that where defendant did not present evidence challenging State’s version of extraneous offenses, jury likely believed the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and inclusion of reasonable-doubt instruction “would not have made a difference in how the jury considered the evidence”
  • noting that the whole charge weighed neither for nor against a finding of egregious harm
  • concluding, when charge at issue contained similar instruction but no beyond reasonable doubt instruction, that charge itself weighed neither for nor against egregious harm finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elsa Alcala

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.