Ex Parte Santellana’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““... did then and there while in the course of committing theft of money owned by [a person], hereafter styled the complainant, and with intent to obtain and maintain control of the property threaten and place the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, by using and exhibiting a deadly weápon, namely, a pistol....””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Collins · Smith v. State

2. “(1) a person (2) in the course of committing theft (3) with the intent to obtain or maintain control of property either (4a) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (5a) causes bodily injury or (4b) knowingly or intentionally (5b) threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death and either (6a) causes serious bodily injury to another or (6b) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Collins · Morgan v. State

3. ““A different situation exists, however, in the instant case. While it might be readily apparent what single act constitutes the ‘gist’ of burglary or indecency with a child, the ‘gist’ of aggravated robbery is considerably less simple to determine. Two criminal acts are implicit in the offense of aggravated robbery: a theft, whether attempted, in progress, or completed, and an assault, which in the instant case was allegedly done by threat with a deadly weapon, V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2); cf. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 31.03, 22.01. The Legislature in defining the offense expressly placed two requisite mental states into the language of the statutes: the offender must act with intent to obtain and maintain control over property, and his threatening or placing the victim in fear must be intentional or knowing. “Viewed in this light, it appears that the phrase ‘intent to obtain or maintain control over the property’ deals with the robber’s state of mind regarding the property in question. The ‘intentionally or knowingly’ element is directed to his state of mind in threatening or placing the victim in fear, the assaultive component of the offense of aggravated robbery. The State contends in essence that the language ‘intentionally of knowingly’ in the statute is superfluous, and that the offense can be adequately alleged without it. However, we find that the construction of the statute as explained above is more consistent with sound principles of st”

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