Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably McCoy v. State (2002), Esmeyer v. State (1996)
40 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 Doyle v. Ohio · McCree v. State · Hill v. State · Wilson v. State · Higgins 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Is established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; | s(2) Consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included within the offense charged; or (3) Differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property, or public interest or a lesser kind of culpable mental state suffices to establish the- offense’s commission.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n offense is not a lesser included offense solely because a greater offense includes all of the elements of an underlying offense. The lesser included offense doctrine additionally requires that the two crimes be of the same generic class and that the differences between the offenses be based upon the degree of risk or risk of injury to person or property or else upon grades of intent or degrees of culpability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Shamlin v. State · McCoy v. State“[W]hile it is true that the Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bivins v. State · Esmeyer 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.