Webber v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
June 1982
most recently cited
30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brumfield v. State · Allaben v. State · Garcia v. State · Santiago v. State · Smith 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When an accused voluntarily takes the stand he subjects himself to any legitimate cross-examination within the rules of evidence. He may be contradicted, impeached, discredited, attacked, sustained, bolstered up and cross-examined as to new matter; except where the law forbids certain matters to be used against him. [citations omitted] “Had the appellant been formally charged but not yet convicted with the offense of shoplifting, evidence that such charge had been filed could not properly be admitted. Art. 38.29, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.; Garcia v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 454 S.W.2d 400 , and the cases there quoted and cited. Here, the appellant had not even been formally charged with the offense of shoplifting.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Randolph v. State““Some may be harmless and some may be made harmless by a negative answer, but whenever the question is so stated that it amounts to an assertion of a fact under the conditions here under discussion and it implies the commission of another offense, it may be said that its harmfulness cannot be cured by the answer and seldom by any instruction which the court is able to give the jury.” (Emphasis included) Wharton, supra, at 740 , quoting, McNaulty v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 317 , 135 S.W.2d 987, 988-989 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lovilotte v. State““. . . The fact that the appellant had placed his general reputation in issue did not authorize the state in combating proof of good reputation to show specific acts of misconduct on his part nor did it authorize the state to make inquiry in such a manner as to show or assert the truth thereof that the appellant had been guilty of particular offenses of misconduct ...””
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.