Watson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 state decisions

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Watson v. State, supra, we said: “ ‘. . . Only recently in Reese v. State, supra, we took note of Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), where we said that “the actual commission of theft is not prerequisite to commission of a robbery, nor need the victim of the theft or attempted theft and the victim of the robbery be the same.” See also Watts v. State, 516 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). This is so because the statute defining robbery (V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 29.02) used the term “in the course of committing theft.” That phrase as defined in V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 29.01, “means conduct that occurs' in an attempt to commit, during the commission or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.” “ ‘It is clear that under the new Penal Code there is no requirement that in every robbery case there must be a fraudulent taking of property as an essential element of the case as was required under the former Code. See Article 1408, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., 1925.’ (Emphasis Supplied) “Considering the testimony of appellant that he entered the store with his companions, pointed a loaded pistol at the clerk with the intention to rob ‘the store’1 and would have completed the robbery if police had not intervened, such testimony supports his stipulation that the offense of robbery was committed. His testimony regarding ‘attempted robbery’ was a conclusion of his, obviously referring to his failure to complete the theft, and should not be permitted to govern ove”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gates v. State

2. ““. . . Likewise, in Granado v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 525 , 329 S.W.2d 864 (1959), it was held the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (Article 725b, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.) was a special statute and that Article 63, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., a general statute, must yield to the special statute which provided penalties for second or subsequent offenses under the special statute. See also Willeford v. State, 454 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Heredia v. State, 468 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Bell v. State, 504 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Aranda v. State, 506 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ex parte Giacona, 518 S.W.2d 832 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Young v. State

3. ““It has long been the rule that improper admission of evidence does not constitute reversible error if the same facts were shown by facts to which no objection was addressed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watkins v. State