Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 470 S.W.2d 656 - Chapman v. State

Chapman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Carrillo v. State (1979), May v. State (1981)

3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

170197119801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. State · Schepps v. State · Odom v. State · 87 Tex. Crim. 606 - Sapp v. State

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

  1. ““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““An accomplice is one who is not present at the commission of an offense, but who, before the act is done, advises, commands or encourages another to commit the offense; or “Who agrees with the principal offender to aid him in committing the offense, though he may not have given such aid; or, “Who promises any reward, favor or other inducement, or threatens any injury in order to procure the commission of the offense; or, “Who prepares arms or aid of any kind, prior to the commission of an offense, for the purpose of assisting the principal in the execution of the same.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In Schepps v. State, supra, on the State’s motion for rehearing, two judges held that the introduction of such a confession implicating the accused violated his constitutional right of confrontation under the circumstances described. A third judge agreed with the reversal because of the court’s refusal to excise the hearsay portion of the principals’ confessions implicating the accused, the limiting charge being insufficient to remove the injury caused.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.