Zuckerman 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. ““Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendants, Frederick Everett Zuckerman and Michael Vincent Zuckerman, or either of them, in Harris County, Texas, on or about December 21, 1977, did enter a building then and there occupied, controlled and in the possession of Gloria J. McKinzie, 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 habitation, as that term has been defined, and that the Defendants, or either of them, 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 the Defendants, or either of . them, guilty as charged in the indictments. “Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will ac quit the Defendants, or either of them.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

2. “It is essential to a conviction for any offense that the accused be criminally responsible either because it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for whom he is criminally responsible.... In this case the jury was authorized to convict appellant on a finding that his co-defendant committed the offense, without a finding that appellant personally committed the offense, or that he was criminally responsible for the acts of his co-defendant. It thus authorized conviction on a set of facts that would -not- constitute an offense for which he was criminally responsible. As such, the jury charge is fundamentally defective. -”

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

3. “It is essential to a conviction for any offense that the accused be criminally responsible either because it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for whom he is criminally responsible. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code §§ 6.01 and 7.01.”

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