Crawley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Carrillo v. State (1979), Plante v. State (1985)
31 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 · 167 Tex. Crim. 355 - Cage v. State · State v. Benton · 132 Tex. Crim. 447 - McArthur v. State · Hernandez 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence of extraneous offenses committed by the accused has been held admissible: (1) To show the context in which the criminal act occurred — what has been termed the ‘res gestae’ — under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence. (2) To circumstantially prove identity where the state lacks direct evidence on this issue. (3) To prove scienter, where intent or guilty knowledge is an essential element of the state’s case and cannot be inferred from the act itself. (4) To prove malice or state of mind, when malice is an essential element of the state’s case and cannot be inferred from the criminal act. (5) To show the accused’s motive, particularly where the commission of the offense at bar is either conditioned upon the commission of the extraneous offense or is a part of a continuing plan or scheme of which the crime on trial is also a part. (6) To refute a defensive theory raised by the accused. “These exceptions to the general rule excluding evidence of the accused’s prior criminal conduct are not mutually exclusive. Nor do they necessarily represent all possible situations in which the state may permissibly prove that the accused has committed a collateral crime. For example, an extraneous offense committed by the accused while attempting to flee may, in a proper case, be admissible as part of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bryant v. State“"The appellant also asserts in Ground No. 1 that the extraneous acts were not admissible because they did not constitute criminal offenses under the penal laws of our State. There is no merit to this contention. That the acts relied upon to prove intent, or scheme or design, did not themselves constitute criminal offenses or result in prosecution, does not render them inadmissible. Williams v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 500 , 279 S.W.2d 348 ; Bedford v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 309 , 170 S.W. 727 ; McArthur v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 447 , 105 S.W.2d 227 . In fact, acts not amounting to crimes would appear to be less prejudicial to the accused than those constituting criminal offenses. Ground of error No. 1 is overruled.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Landers 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.