Lucio v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 42 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). This “familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 . “Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 .”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Jeffrey Dean Gerron v. State · Jacob Scott Turner v. State

2. “do not review the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury's finding on the elements of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Gibbs v. State · Canada v. State

3. “See Jackson , 2006 WL 2380398 , at n.3 ; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.042 (governing appeals from municipal courts that are not municipal courts of record). When presenting this issue, Canada asserts that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient. However, the court of criminal appeals has clarified that the”

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