King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Rousseau v. State (1993), Cantu v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 77 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 Jurek v. Texas · Albrecht v. State · Granviel v. State · Arivette v. State · Hogan 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(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 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘Where terms used are words simple in themselves, and are used in their ordinary meaning, jurors are supposed to know such common meaning and terms and under such circumstances such eom-mon words are not necessarily to be defined in the charge to the jury.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ahearn v. State · Johnson v. State“[A]ppellant argues that Article 37.-071(b)(2) V.A.C.C.P. is unconstitutional in that it diminishes the burden of proof required under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments[, inter alia,] ... Specifically, he maintains that since the jury is required to find only a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, the standard of proof is significantly less stringent than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Although appellant’s argument is quite novel, we find it to be without merit.... To single out the word “probability” from the language of the second special issue and infer a lessening of the State’s burden of proof is to take the word totally out of context. Such an interpretation of the statute violates the spirit of the Code Construction Act....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kemp 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.