39 Tex. Crim. 488 - Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At common law the term or word ‘ravish’ is essential in every indictment for rape; and it appears to include the idea that the party charged, forcibly and against the will of the woman, had carnal knowledge of the female. See Harman v. Com., 12 Serg. & R. 69. The learned judge in that case cites the definitions of the term ‘ravish’ by Lord Hale, Hawkins, and Chitty, which support the view above announced, to-wit, that the word ‘ravish’ is equivalent in meaning to carnal knowledge of the woman against her will and consent. For a further definition of the term ‘ravish’ see Harper v. Delp, 3 Ind. 225 ; O’Connell v. State, 6 Minn. 279 ( Gil. 190 ) ; and Century Dictionary. This same view appears to prevail in this state. See Davis v. State, 42 Tex. 226 ; Elschlep v. State, 11 Tex. App. 301; Gibson v. State, 17 Tex. App. 574. Evidently, the pleader in this case, from negligence, left off the word ‘knowledge’ after the word ‘camal.’ But we hold that this was immaterial, in view of the fact that the indictment contains the distinct allegation that the said W. S. Fields did then and there ravish the said Alice Requardt, which is equivalent to saying that he had carnal knowledge of her without her consent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 154 Tex. Crim. 347 - Ray v. State