Riles v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Kitchens v. State (1991), Hawkins v. State (1983)
5 federal appellate · 42 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 DeRusse v. State · Burks v. State · Milligan v. State · Davison v. State · Riles 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““conduct occurring in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of the offense, i.e., in this case, of robbery.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lincecum v. State · Cruz v. State“"Any psychiatric examination with regard to the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense, and any testimony by the psychiatrist based on that examination, must necessarily deal with the defendant's conduct, and his perception thereof, at the time of the offense. The statements of the defendant to the psychiatrist concerning that conduct are, therefore, highly probative on the issue of the insanity defense. As a consequence, Art. 46.03, Sec. 3, V.A.C.C.P., contains no prohibition against the use of the defendant's statements at his trial similar to the prohibition found in Art. 46.02, Sec. 3(g), supra. "We can perceive of no reason to apply Art. 46.02, Sec. 3(g), so as to forbid the trial use, relative to the sanity defense, of the defendant's statements to the psychiatrist during a combined competence/sanity examination pursuant to Art. 46.03, Sec. 3(g), supra. Psychiatric testimony with regard to the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense would hardly be possible if statements by the defendant during his examination were inadmissible, and the jury would be deprived of valuable evidence relative to the insanity defense. Moreover, to allow the statements of the defendant during an Art. 46.03, Sec. 3(g), examination to be admitted in evidence at his trial causes no unique prejudice to the defendant; he is in precisely the same position as any other defendant who is examined with regard to the insanity defense." Id. at 229, 230.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hawkins v. State““Capital Murder “(a) A person commits an offense if he commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(a)(1) of this code and: * * * * * * “(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit ... rob bery, ...” 6”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Drew 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.