Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 SW2D 784 - Ridyolph v. State

Ridyolph v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
March 2003
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Bell v. State (1986), Hankins v. State (1983)

32 state decisions

1601977198019902000decided

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 171 Tex. Crim. 130 - Pennington v. State · Sloan v. State · Hogan v. State · Cox v. State · 85 Tex. Crim. 165 - Banks 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.

  1. ““It is true, of course, that an admission or confession must unequivocally admit the commission of the act charged before the court is relieved of the. necessity of giving a charge on the law of circumstantial evidence on the basis of a confession alone. Martinez v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 316 , 207 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1948); Hielscher v. State, [Tex.Cr.App., 511 S.W.2d 305 ]. “It was made clear in Martinez v. State, supra, that even if' the accused confesses or admits to the commission of a crime it must be shown by the evidence and the confession of the accused that the crime admitted is the same crime for which the defendant is being tried if the circumstantial evidence charge is not given. If it is only by a process of inference from the confession or admission that it can be determined that the accused did the killing or was a guilty party therein, the court should give the circumstantial evidence charge. See 4 Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2nd ed., Sec. 2049, p. 358; Hielscher v. State, supra; Casey v. State, [Tex.Cr. App., 523 S.W.2d 658, 659 ].” Appellant’s confession in this case recites: “On Sunday, the 14th of November 1976, Roosevelt Valentine came by my motel and he had Will Green with him in a Cadilac [sic] and picked me up and we left Will Green there in my motel and we both went driving around a while and was getting low on gas and we drove by a service station in the City of Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas. I went into the service station to get someone to help us and”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.