Reeves, Gary Patrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 2nd day of May, 2010, in Harris County, Texas, the defendant, Jeremy Deshawn Dugar, did then and there unlawfully, commit the felony offense of aggravated assault by intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing serious bodily injury to Tevin Williams by firing a firearm into the vicinity of a group of people, and while in the course of and furtherance of the commission of said offense did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to-wit: firing a deadly weapon, namely a firearm, into the vicinity of a group of people and did thereby cause the death of Tevin Williams; or If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 2nd day of May, 2010, in Harris County, Texas, the defendant, Jeremy Deshawn Dugar, did then and there unlawfully, commit the felony offense of deadly conduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly discharging a firearm at or in the direction of Tevin Williams, and while in the course of and furtherance of the commission of said offense, did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to-wit: by firing a deadly weapon, namely a firearm, into the vicinity of a group of people and did thereby cause the death of Tevin Williams, then you will find the defendant guilty of felony murder, as charged in the indictment.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martinez v. State · Stephen Jonathon Vogt v. State

2. “Defense: And then it goes on to say and I could be off my mark here .but I’m just confused by it. It says: “Bearing ■ in mind the foregoing instructions pn the issue of deadly force in defense of person, you must find that the Defendant Michael Rivas and/or Leonardo Rivas was not justified in using deadly force, if any, against Felix Flores but if you do not so find or if you have a reasonable doubt, you will acquit.” It’s saying — apparently, it could be read as saying if you don’t find deadly force, you must acquit. Am I reading that wrong? Court: Let me read it again. State: It says “if not justified in using deadly force.” If you have a- reason-. able doubt on that, that they were not justified in using it, you must acquit. I believe that’s the state of the law.... Court: So what is your problem with the wording? That it’s not clear?. Defense: Your Honor, I think my problem comes into play in that it seems to say if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not Michael Rivas and/or Leonard Rivas were justified in using the force they used, if you do not find a reasonable doubt you will acquit. Court: If you find the defendants were not justified in using deadly force, if any, against Felix Flores. State: It says: ‘You must find that the defendant Michael Rivas and/or Leonardo Rivas was not justified — was not justified in using deadly force but if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then you have to acquit.” It’s an affirmative defense. They • have to come " forward w”

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

3. “It is also relevant to the harm analysis that the erroneous instruction ... undermined appellant’s sole defense.”). 8 . The Texas Penal Code defines”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Villarreal, Rene Daniel