Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 39 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The application clause reads as follows: “Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 13th day of May, 1981, in Cameron County, Texas, the Defendant, Juan Jose Martinez, while in the course of committing theft of property, namely: United States currency, and with intent to deprive Jose Miguel Flores, the owner thereof, without the effective consent of said owner, did then and there use and exhibit a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm, and did then and there intentionally and knowingly threaten and place Jose Miguel Flores in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, then you will find the Defendant guilty of aggravated robbery.””

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

2. ““The precise question presented is whether in an aggravated robbery case fundamental error attends a charge of the court to the jury applying the law to the facts which omits the specific intent element of robbery as alleged in the indictment — ‘with intent to obtain and maintain control of the property’ — but, instead states it as ‘with intent to appropriate the property.’ When, as here, the charge elsewhere instructs the jury that ‘appropriate’ means ‘to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property.’ we find that such a charge is not fatally defective.” pp. 834 — 5.”

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

3. “Although the element of the offense as alleged in the indictment was not mirrored in that portion of the charge applying the law to the facts of the offense, we find that substitution of language comporting with and the equivalent of the legal theory alleged in the indictment does not present fundamental error.”

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