Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 SW3D 23 - Sakil v. State

Sakil v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso))

Relationships

Relies on Almanza v. State · Hutch v. State · Druery v. State · Delgado v. State · Barrios 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “You are instructed that voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of a crime. You are further instructed that under our law neither intoxication nor temporary insanity of mind caused by intoxication shall constitute any defense to the commission of a crime. Evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication, if any, should be considered only in mitigation of the penalty, if any, attached to the offense. By the term “intoxication” as used herein is meant disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.”
    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.