Penry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “concluded that [Article 36.19’s] language created two separate harm-analysis standards: the first to be used when a timely objection is made to the charge; the second to be used when no such objection appears in the record. The first standard dictates that reversal should occur if the defendant made a timely objection and if the error is “calculated to injure the rights of the defendant.” [The Court of Criminal Appeals] ha[s] interpreted this to mean that there must be some harm to the defendant from the error. Properly preserved jury-charge error requires reversal unless it is harmless. If the defendant has not made a timely objection, we apply the second standard, and reversal is not required unless he has not had a fair trial.”

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

2. “[u]nder Code of Criminal Procedure Article 36.19, we will not reverse a conviction or sentence on the basis of jury charge error `unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of the defendant, or unless it appears that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Smith