Bagheri v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. not having the normal use of his [sic] mental or physical faculties by the reason of the introduction of alcohol into his [sic] body; 2. OR ... having an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 in his [sic] breath; 8. OR ... not having the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by the reason of the introduction of a drug, namely, Sertraline into her body; 4. OR ... not having the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of a combination of alcohol and a drug, namely Sertraline, into her body....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. State · Fulenwider v. State

2. “To prove the element of intoxication in a prosecution for the offense of driving while intoxicated, the State must offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to that element. To be sure, if the State relies upon the 0.10% definition of intoxication, 3 then such proof will normally appear in the form of a chemical test showing the alcohol concentration in a defendant’s body near the time of the offense. However, a conviction will not necessarily follow from the offer of such a test. First, the trier of fact must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the chemical test provides trustworthy evidence of alcohol concentration in a defendant’s breath, blood or urine. Second, the jury must still be convinced beyond a-reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had a 0.10% alcohol concentration in his body at the time of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trillo v. State

3. “the issue is not whether the jury charge sets out .a. valid and proper means- of committing the offense .of DWI or whether there, was sufficient evidence to prove one of the alleged means by which appellant committed the offense; rather, this court must ask whether the extrapo-lation. evidence offered by the State’s expert to prove “per se” intoxication might have seriously affected' the jury’s ability to determine if appellant was intoxicated, whether by “impairment” or “perse.” •”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Luis Enrique Veliz v. State