136 Tex. Crim. 12 - Aston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1990
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 53 Tex. Crim. 349 - Gibson v. State · 104 Tex. Crim. 65 - McKinley v. State · Crook v. State · 53 Tex. Crim. 400 - Richards 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In his charge the court failed to instruct the jury that they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the principal was guilty. It appears that the principal had theretofore been convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder. The charge of the court merely required the jury to find that he had been convicted of such offense. To warrant a conviction of the accomplice the guilt of the principal must be shown. Gibson v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 349 , 110 S.W. 41 . Stated in another way, to authorize a conviction of one as an accomplice `the state must prove the commission of the offense by the principal to the same certainty as if the principal were on trial, and therefore beyond a reasonable doubt.' (Citations omitted.) The accomplice may contest the guilt of the alleged principal. McKinley v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 65 , 282 S.W. 600 . The fact that the principal had been convicted would not have prevented the appellant from seeking to show that he (the principal) was not guilty. It follows that the charge of the court was erroneous."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It was alleged in the indictment that Dewey Parker committed the offense, and that appellant, not being present at the commission of said offense, and prior to its commission, did unlawfully and willfully furnish arms and aid to said Dewey Parker. It was incumbent upon the state, in order to meet the allegations of the indictment, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dewey Parker committed the offense in the manner alleged in the indictment, and that prior to the commission of said offense, appellant prepared and furnished arms and aid to said Parker for the purpose of assisting in the commission of the offense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tucker v. State
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.