Dowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is fundamental that a conviction for an offense cannot stand unless the charge authorized the jury to find a defendant guilty only for conduct constituting that offense ( Venzor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 175 , 283 S.W.2d 397 ); the indictment alleged such conduct ( Venzor v. State, supra; 31 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 69 at 596); and the evidence at trial showed such conduct ( Powell v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 201 , 131 S.W. 590 ; 5 Branch's Ann.P.C. (2d ed.), Sec. 2603 at 32). In the instant case none of these requirements of due process of law were met because the trial court authorized the jury to find appellant guilty upon a set of circumstances that could not constitute the offense charged. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed." (Emphasis added).”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Long v. State · Walton v. State

2. ““. . . This practice at best is useless and at worst may confuse and mislead the jury and, therefore, prejudice a defendant. This Court in the past has had occasion to caution against the enumeration in the charge of portions of a statute that could not be relied upon for a conviction. E. g., Griffith v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 559 , 155 S.W.2d 612 ; see Grudzien v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 827 ; Simons v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 34 S.W. 619 ; cf. Mauldin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 10 . We reiterate that admonition.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walton v. State · Mouton v. State

3. ““Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Brazos County, Texas, on or about the 6th day of July, 1977, the defendant, EDDIE ES-CAMILLA, did enter a building then and there occupied, controlled, and in the possession of D. C. Velasquez, hereinafter called owner, without the effective consent of said owner, and that such building was then and there an enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a building and then and there in actual use by said owner as a building, as that term has been defined, and that the defendant, at the time of such entry, if any there was, had the intent then and there to take and exercise control over the corporeal personal property therein being and owned and belonging to said owner, without the effective consent of said owner, with intent to deprive the owner of said property, then you will find defendant guilty.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Werner v. State · Jones v. State