Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1995
9 state decisions
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 157 Tex. Crim. 572 - Miers v. State · Hamilton v. State · 158 Tex. Crim. 447 - Doswell v. State · Shelton v. State · Barber 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Direct testimony from any source that the accused was an actor in bringing about the death of the deceased characterizes the case as one of direct and not circumstantial evidence. Miers v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 572 , 251 S.W.2d 404 . “ . . . Where the only element proved by circumstantial evidence is that of intent, no charge upon circumstantial evidence is required. Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 33 ; Doswell v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 447 , 256 S.W.2d 416 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sloan v. State““Where the only element proved by circumstantial evidence is that of intent, no charge upon circumstantial evidence is required . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baldwin v. State
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.