Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Myre v. State (1977), Maddox v. State (1985)
40 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 Chapman v. State of California · Harrington v. California · Washington v. Texas · Foster v. California · Thompson 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court stated in Hernandez v. State, 484 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Cr.App.1972): “ ‘This Court has consistently held that the state is entitled to prove the circumstances surrounding the arrest. See Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 413 , and cases cited therein. An exception to this rule is where the evidence is inherently prejudicial and has no relevance to any issue in the case.2 A decision as to the admissibility of such evidence lies within the discretion of the trial judge, and this court will not reverse unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See generally, Lanham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 197 .’ “In Footnote 2 of the above quote, we went on to state: ‘A good example of how these rules should be applied can be found in the instant case. The trial court sustained appellant’s objection to testimony concerning the recovery of a stolen television during the search. Even though such testimony concerned facts surrounding the search and arrest of appellant, it did not relate to proving that he possessed the heroin in question and could only be used to prejudice consideration of whether appellant committed the crime charged. See, Powell v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 478 S.W.2d 95 .’ “Since the shotgun in question had no relevance to any issue in the case, the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting it into evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schuenemann v. State“The duty of this court is to determine from the record the probable impact upon the minds of an average jury. Unless we find a reasonable probability that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to appellant’s conviction, reversal is not required. If we conclude that ‘the minds of an average jury’ would not have found the State’s case significantly less persuasive had the testimony now at issue been excluded, we need not reverse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meno 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.