Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
36 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio))
Relationships
Relies on Almanza v. State · Ngo v. State · Hutch v. State · Rezac v. State · Adams 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before you would be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of capital murder, you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant ... intentionally employed Robert Mason to kill Jimmy Sims; ... or you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant ... entered into an agreement with Robert Mason to commit the felony offense of aggravated assault of Jimmy Sims ... and pursuant to that agreement they did carry out their conspiracy and while in the course of committing said conspiracy, Robert Mason intentionally caused the death of Jimmy Sims....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. State“as follows: III. A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of her conduct when it is her conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of her conduct when she is aware of the nature of her conduct or to the circumstances surrounding her conduct when she is aware of the nature of her conduct or that the circumstances exist. Immediately following the definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fulcher v. State“Of course, absent a trial objection, the court of appeals was not free to reverse the conviction on the basis of jury-charge error absent a finding of the requisite egregious harm.” Id. 41 . Casanova, supra, at . 42 . 164 Tex.Crim. 125 , 297 S.W.2d 157 (1957) (opinion on reh'g). 43 . Id. at 159 . 44 . Id. 45 . Id. 46 . Id. 47 . Warner, supra, at 464 . 48 . See Tex.R. Evid. 606(b) (”
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.