Smith v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• jury charge that broadly instructed the jury on the full law of sodomy “did not present fundamental error” when the application paragraph limited the jury’s consideration of the offense to the theory of sodomy “as alleged in the indictment and made by the facts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Boutwell v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1985-04-24· cited 223×
• Johnston v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1967-06-28· cited 59×
• Smith v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1967-04-19· cited 27×
• James v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1967-06-28· cited 16×
• Martin v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-02-23· cited 9×
• Alexander v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-05-04· cited 7×
• CUEVAS, VICTOR HUGO v. the State of Texas
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2026-04-02

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Young v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1953-11-11· cited 109×
• Gephart v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1952-02-27· cited 84×
• Johns v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1951-01-17· cited 78×
• Head v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1954-04-28· cited 31×
• Martinez v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1952-06-25· cited 26×
• Earwood v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1955-01-12· cited 22×
• Lozano v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1954-01-20· cited 19×
• Lights v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1886-05-08· cited 18×
• Earwood v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1953-01-12· cited 16×
• Smith v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1960-06-08· cited 2×