Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . This was an instruction on the law applicable to the case. See Art. 38.08 V.A.C.C.P. In Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 748, 754 , this court, speaking through Judge Onion, held that a similar instruction was in substantial compliance with Art. 38.08, supra, and further noted: “ ‘In Small v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 279 , 104 S.W.2d 52 , it was held that instruction on defendant’s failure to testify being substantially the same as that embraced in the statute may not be objected to as insinuating culpable omission on the part of the defendant or as conveying impression that he should have testified. And in Compton v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 53 , 184 S.W.2d 630 , it was held that unless the court was permitted to so charge the court would be powerless to instruct the jury to observe Article 710, V.A.C.C.P., 1925 (now Article 38.08) which prohibits taking such failure as a circumstance against the defendant. “ ‘Bellard v. United States (5 Cir.), 356 F.2d 437 , cert. den. 385 U.S. 856 , 87 S.Ct. 103 , 17 L.Ed.2d 83 , held it was not error for the trial court, of its own volition, to instruct the jury that a defendant’s failure to testify cannot he considered as a circumstance against him. See also United States v. Carter, 422 F.2d 519 (6 Cir.); Friloux, Federal Court’s Charge on Defendant’s Failure to Testify, 6 South Texas Law Journal 15.’ “In Smith v. State, supra, it was further noted: “ ‘As a practical matter, most trial courts do not give the instruction over the o”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. State · Rogers v. State

2. ““The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense may waive any rights secured him by law except the right of trial by jury in a capital felony case in which the State has made known in open court in writing at least 15 days prior to trial that it will seek the death penalty. No case in which the State seeks the death penalty shall be tried until 15 days after such notice is given. When the State makes known to the court in writing in open court that it will not seek the death penalty in a capital case, the defendant may enter a plea of guilty before the court and waive trial by jury as provided in Article 1.13, and in such case under no circumstances may the death penalty be imposed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Batten v. State · Ex parte Watkins

3. ““We, therefore, hold that when the State has failed to give the prescribed written notice as required by Article 1.14, supra (V.A.C.C.P.), that it will seek the death penalty, or has withdrawn such notice, already given, and announces ready and goes to trial before a jury, such action is tantamount to making it known to the court that the State will not qualify the jury on, or seek the death penalty. Clearly under such circumstances, while the nature of the offense does not change, the case becomes a non-capital case as to the accused and the provisions of Article 34.04, supra (V.A.C.C.P.), has no application to such case.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schoier v. State · Ex Parte Sorola v. State