Easdon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “****** We also observe that the charge actually given instructed the jury that the presumption ‘may be overcome by evidence,’ while it neglected to inform the jury, as required by Sec. 2.05, that if it had ‘a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose.’ In this respect the charge was at best confusing, and could have shifted the burden of proof in the minds of the jurors. ******”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Turpin v. State · Evans v. State

2. “A statutory presumption permits an inference to be drawn from proof of certain facts. In this instance the statute permits the jury to infer that a person is intoxicated if it is proved that there was 0.10 percent alcohol in his blood when he drove a motor vehicle on a public highway. The State is not relieved of the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to take advantage of the presumption the State must prove each fact giving rise to the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the jury finds that the facts giving rise to the presumption are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury is not required to presume the fact or element of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rogers v. State · Evans v. State

3. “You are further instructed that as a part of the law in this case the statutes of the State of Texas provide that it shall be presumed that any person who drives a motor vehicle is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, if there was, at the time that the person so drove, 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, as shown by chemical analysis of the person’s blood, breath, urine or any other bodily substance. You are instructed that the law concerning “presumption” as it applies to intoxication is as follows: That the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; That if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find; That even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose.”

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