Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 SW3D 731 - Dixon v. State

Dixon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

34 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on Sullivan v. Louisiana · Johnson v. Louisiana · Sledge v. State · Ex Parte Goodbread · O'NEAL 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 34 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 offenses; (2) to minimize the risk that the jury might choose to convict, not because one or more crimes were proven 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he 'multiple offenses' were all recounted by the same source-the child.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Appellant] is on trial solely on the charges contained in the indictment. In reference to evidence, if any, that [appellant] has engaged in transactions or acts other than that which is charged by the indictment in this case, you are instructed that you cannot consider such other transactions or acts, if any, for any purpose, unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that [appellant] engaged in said transactions or acts, and, even then, you may only consider said evidence for the purpose of determining the state of mind of [appellant] and the child, or the previous and subsequent relationship between [appellant] and the child, if any.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.