Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 491 SW2D 936 - Wright v. State

Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
April 1992
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 1992

11 state decisions

70197319801990decided

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 Frison v. State · Brown v. State · 164 Tex. Crim. 362 - Grizzell v. State · Broadway v. State · Webber 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Bill of exception No. 3 reveals that appellant had used as a witness one Rut-land, who had testified that appellant’s reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was good, after which the county attorney asked the witness upon cross-examination if his evidence had not related to a time prior to the incident for which appellant was being tried, to which the witness answered yes, and the county attorney asked if witness had not heard quite a bit of discussion as to his reputation since that time. Appellant’s objection was overruled. The court appends to said bill of exception the questions and answers of the witness at this point, which shows that after the court had overruled appellant’s objection the county attorney then said to witness, ‘And it (his reputation) hasn’t all been good by any means?’ to which witness answered, ‘Well, I have heard a lot since that time.’ The state was venturing on dangerous ground in the particulars mentioned, but it appears that the witness did not advise whether what he had heard had been good or bad, and we think the bill fails to reflect error which would call for a reversal.” Id. at 181 and 182.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is still improper to permit a witness to testify that a defendant’s general reputation for being a peaceable law-abiding citizen is bad based upon the offense for which he is being tried. Stephens v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 531 [311] 80 S.W. 2d 980 (1935) ; Broadway v. State, supra [Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 679 ] (concurring opinion); Wilson v. State, 434 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) and Frison v. State, supra [Tex.Cr.App., 473 S.W.2d 479 ] It is also improper to test the knowledge of a witness who has testified to the good reputation of a defendant for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen by asking ‘have you heard’ questions concerning the alleged offense for which he is being tried.””
    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.