Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 SW3D 41 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 300th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Tibbs v. Florida · Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. · Almanza 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Now bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 31st day of December, 2008, through the 15th day of April, 2009, in Guadalupe County, Texas, the defendant Justin Smith, did then and there commit two or more acts of sexual abuse against [R.W.], a child younger than fourteen (14) years of age, more than thirty (30) days apart, namely: That the defendant, Justin Smith, did then and there, with the intent to arose or gratify the sexual desire of Justin Smith, intentionally or knowingly engage in sexual contact with [R.W.] by touching the genitals of [R.W.], a child younger than fourteen (14) years of age with the defendant’s hand and or fingers, or That the defendant, Justin Smith, did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of the sexual organ of [R.W.], by the defendant’s finger, and That the defendant the defendant [sic], Justin Smith, did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of the sexual organ of [R.W.], a child under fourteen (14) years of age, with the defendant’s sexual organ (penis) then you will find the defendant guilty of Continuous Sexual Abuse.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(b) A person commits an offense if: (1) during a period that is 30 or more days in duration, the person commits two or more acts of sexual abuse, regardless of whether the acts of sexual abuse are committed against one or more victims; and (2) at the time of the commission of each of the acts of sexual abuse, the actor is 17 years of age or older and the victim is a child younger than 14 years of age. (c) For purposes of this section, "act of sexual abuse" means any act that is a violation of one or more of the following penal laws: .... (2) indecency with a child under Section 21.11(a)(1), if the actor committed the offense in a manner other than by touching, including touching through clothing, the breast of a child; (3) sexual assault under Section 22.011; (4) aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021; .... (d) If a jury is the trier of fact, members of the jury are not required to agree unanimously on which specific acts of sexual abuse were committed by the defendant or the exact date when those acts were committed. The jury must agree unanimously that the defendant, during a period that is 30 or more days in duration, committed two or more acts of sexual abuse.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[A]lthough the exact dates of the abuse need not be proven, the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child does require proof that there were two or more acts of sexual abuse that occurred during a period that was thirty or more days in duration.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.