Payne v. Stated’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2007
17 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 Cunningham v. State · State v. Perkins · Cobb v. State · Ansley v. State · 83 Tex. Crim. 130 - Anderson 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law is settled that an allegation that the name of a person connected with the offense was unknown to the Grand Jury must be supported by sufficient proof. And where this allegation becomes an issue on the trial, the proof must show that the Grand Jury used due diligence to ascertain the unknown name.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Polk v. State · Smith v. State“It is important to note that Payne requires proof of grand jury due diligence only when the allegation that the person from whom the property was received was unknown becomes an issue. [[Image here]] The issue that Payne refers to is not whether the grand jury exercised due diligence. Instead, the preliminary issue that must be raised by the evidence is whether or not the allegation that the person from whom the property was received was actually unknown. In other words, the issue is whether or not the identity of the allegedly unknown person was known or with the exercise of reasonable diligence capable of being known. Consequently, grand jury due diligence must be proven by the State only after the evidence reveals that the original thief’s identity was known or capable of being discovered. If the identity of the original thief was unknown or incapable of being discovered then evidence of a grand jury’s diligence in trying to discover that which remains unknown would be a time consuming exercise of self-serving futility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith 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.