Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 S.W.3d 268 - Fleck v. State

Fleck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 176th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on O'NEAL v. State · Phillips v. State · Phillips v. State · Martinez v. State · Farr 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “{1] to protect the accused from the introduction of extraneous evidence; [2] to minimize the risk that the jury might choose to convict, not because one or more crimes were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but because all of them together convinced the jury the defendant was guilty; [3] to ensure unanimous verdicts; that is, all of the jurors agreeing that one specific incident, which constituted the offense charged in the indictment, occurred; and [4] to give the defendant notice of the particular offense the State intends to rely upon for prosecution and afford the defendant an opportunity to defend.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.