Huizar v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
87
cited by 87 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited
85 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Almanza v. State · Geesa v. State · McFarland v. State · Arline v. State
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not limited to the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation, his character, an opinion regarding his character, the circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried, and, notwithstanding Rules 404 and 405, Texas Rules of Evidence, any other evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act that is shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence- to have been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible, regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or finally convicted of the crime or act.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While extraneous-offense and bad-act evidence is generally admissible at punishment under section 3(a), we have recognized in unequivocal terms the circumstances in which it can be considered by the jury: [Ejvidence [of extraneous bad acts and offenses] may not be considered in assessing punishment until the fact-finder is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that [such, acts and offenses] are attributable to the defendant, [emphasis supplied] Once this requirement is met, the fact-finder may use the evidence however it chooses in assessing punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rodgers v. State“Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action upon appeal that any requirement of Articles 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. All objections to the charge and to the refusal of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.