Iness v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Hawkins v. State (1983), Lagrone v. State (1997)
35 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Williams v. People of State of New York
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that the trial court may allow a disputed portion of a witness’ testimony to be read to the jury and refuse additional testimony. Article 36.28, V.A.C.C.P.; Nichols v. State, 494 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Johnson v. State, 444 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). “When the jury asks that certain disputed testimony be re-read (sic), the court must first determine if the request is proper under Article 36.28, supra. If it is proper, the court must then interpret the communication; decide, in its discretion, what sections of the testimony will best answer the query, and limit the testimony accordingly. See Bonsal v. State, 502 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Swidell v. State, 491 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Duncan v. State, 454 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Alvear v. State, 341 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1960). “In the instant case the jury’s request stated that they were in disagreement concerning the penetration testimony of the witness. Although the note mentioned the direct examination by the State, the Court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the sentence ‘we are in disagreement concerning this matter’ as an expression of disagreement concerning the prosecutrix’ entire testimony relating to penetration. This was later borne out by another request to have a second reading of the appellant’s cross-examination of her.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. DeGraff v. State · Jones v. State“At the beginning of where [the victim] was being questioned by the D.A. about actual penetration. We are in disagreement as to her answers concerning this matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State“properly instructed [the jury] that they must certify their disagreement and request only that part of a witness’ testimony which was in dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moore 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.