Salazar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 165 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is not dispositive that the statement is an answer to a question or that it was separated by a period of time from the startling event; these are simply factors to consider in determining whether the statement is admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception. See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 750-51 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 977 , 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995); McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 846 (Tex. Crim. App.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 963 , 113 S.Ct. 2937 , 124 L.Ed.2d 686 , (1993). The critical determination is “whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event” or condition at the time of the statement. McFarland, 845 S.W.2d at 846 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Glover v. State · Zuliani v. State

2. “Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury’s deliberations, or to the effect of anything on any juror’s mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror’s assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment. Nor may a juror’s affidavit or any statement by a juror concerning any matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be admitted in evidence for any of these purposes. However, a juror may testify: (1) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror; or (2) to rebut a claim that the juror was not qualified to serve.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salazar v. Dretke · Wilkie Schell Colyer, Jr. v. State

3. “A trial court's ruling denying a defendant’s motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, but simply determine whether the trial court’s Sneed analysis was arbitrary or unreasonable. The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the testifying jurors. Where there is conflicting evidence on an issue of fact as to jury misconduct, the trial judge determines the issue and there is no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salazar v. Dretke · Monreal v. State