Dennis Eugene Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n evaluating the legal sufficiency in this case, we must review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict to determine whether any rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the defendant] committed the offense. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texar-kana 2010, pet. refd) (citing Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.- Crim. App. 2007)). We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury “to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, two weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ). Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct jury charge “sets out the law, is authorized by the indictr ment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular- offense for which, the defendant was tried.” Id; see Allen v. State, 436 S.W.3d 815, 818 (Tex. App.—Texarkana ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fowler

2. “Rule 614 requires a trial court to exclude testifying witnesses from the courtroom unless the witness is (1) a party or the spouse of a party in a civil case, (2) an officer or employee of a legal entity named in the lawsuit who has been designated as the entity’s representative for purposes of the trial, (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause, or (4) the victim in a criminal ease, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim’s testimony would be materially affected by hearing other trial testimony.”

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