Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 state decisions

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When reviewing the sufficiency of non-[jailhouse informant] evidence under Article 38.14, we decide whether the in-culpatory evidence tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense. The sufficiency of non-[jailhouse informant] evidence is judged according to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The direct or circumstantial non-[jailhouse informant] evidence is sufficient corroboration if it shows that rational jurors could have found that it sufficiently tended to connect the accused to the offense. So when there are conflicting views of the evidence — one that tends to connect the accused to the offense and one that does not — we will defer to the factfinder’s resolution of the evidence. Therefore, it is not appropriate for appellate courts to independently construe the non-[jailhouse informant] evidence.... [Reviewing courts [are required] to consider the combined force of all of the non-Qailhouse informant] evidence that tends to connect the accused to the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Esteban Ruiz v. State

2. “In determining whether non-accomplice evidence tends to connect a defendant to the offense, ... 'the evidence must simply link the accused in some way to the commission of the crime and show that rational jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect [the accused] to the offense.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reed v. State