Rogers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

cited by 19 later decisions

states following

March 1990

most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 1990

19 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 Albrecht v. State · Ysasaga v. State · Jones v. State · Ferrell v. State · Powell 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““. . . flight is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn, e. g. Ysa s aga [Ysasaga v. State], 444 S.W.2d 305 ; Crenshaw v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 676 . Still, flight should show some act or instance of running away. The fact that appellant was in Houston within a seven day period of time does not indicate flight. There must be some circumstance to show that the accused is moving out or running, e. g. Woods v. State [Tex.Cr.App.], 480 S.W.2d 664 ; Israel v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 574 , 258 S.W.2d 82 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Thompson v. State · Riles v. State
““[T]he record reflects that the extraneous offense [another robbery by assault] occurred within a few blocks of the primary offense. Clearly, flight is not shown.” (Emphasis added.) 484 S.W.2d at 711 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Thompson v. State · Riles v. State
““To hold that the cross-examination of this [complainant] would permit the introduction of an extraneous offense would be tantamount to holding that such testimony would be admissible in any case where a defendant’s counsel exercises the constitutional right of cross-examination. This is not and should not be the law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Elkins 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.