Gooden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Now, if you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, DONALD RAY MORRIS, acting either alone or with another person, or persons, on or about the 17th day of September, 1975, in Hunt County, Texas, did then and there while in the course of committing theft, as that term is defined to you in this charge, and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property of Mary Lou Anderson to-wit: lawful money of the United States without the effective consent of the said Mary Lou Anderson, of said property, did then and there intentionally or knowingly threaten or place the said Mary Lou Anderson in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and if you further find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in so doing the foregoing acts, if you do so find, the defendant, acting either alone or with another person or persons, used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a firearm, then, you will find the defendant, DONALD RAY MORRIS guilty of aggravated robbery, as charged in the indictment. If you do not so find and believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, then, you will find the defendant not guilty of aggravated robbery." (Emphasis added).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morris v. State · Cullum v. State

2. ““Now if you find, from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 8th day of April, 1980, in Cameron County, Texas, the Defendant, ALFREDO C. MARTINEZ, with the intent to deprive Donald Wayne Keener, the owner of his personal property, to-wit, United States currency belonging to said owner, did unlawfully appropriate or unlawfully attempt to appropriate from said Donald Wayne Keener said United States currency and that the Defendant, in doing so and with the intent to obtain or maintain control of said United States currency, then and there intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed said owner in fear of eminent bodily injury or death and if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in committing the foregoing acts, if you do so find, used or exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm which was then and there in the manner of its use, capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, then you will find the Defendant guilty of AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, as charged in the indictment.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moring v. State · Young v. State

3. ““This charge authorized the jury to convict the appellant as charged of aggravated robbery if they found, among other things, he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant and if they further found beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant caused serious bodily injury to the complainant. This was simply not alleged in the indictment. Further, the charge would have authorized a conviction for aggravated robbery if the jury found he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury by using and exhibiting a deadly weapon. This was not alleged either. In fact, the charge authorized a conviction under every conceivable theory under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 29.02 and Section 29.03, rather than limiting it to the theory alleged in the indictment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. State · Ellison v. State