Rubio v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

85 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen the defensive theory of consent is raised, a defendant necessarily disputes his intent to do the act without the consent of the complainant, and his intent is thereby placed in issue.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McClure v. State · McLellan v. Benson

2. ““[T]hese evidentiary principles, as most, must in some circumstances give way. For extraneous transactions constituting offenses shown to have been committed by the accused [ 3 ] may become admissible upon a showing by the prosecution both that the transaction is relevant to a material issue in the case; and, the relevancy value of the evidence outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial potential. In determining this evidentiary balance in a case established by direct evidence [ 4 ] the court must consider whether the material issue to which the extraneous conduct is relevant is contested, and, if so, in looking to the attributes of the extraneous offense as shown by the State, determine whether its admission would be of assistance to the jury in resolving the contested issue before it.” [emphasis original] [citations and footnotes omitted]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Elkins v. State · Bates v. State

3. “Evidence of other crimes committed by the accused may be admitted, however, where such evidence is shown to be both material and relevant to a contested issue in the case.... Thus, before evidence of collateral crimes is admissible, a relation ship between such evidence and the evidence necessary to prove that the accused committed the crime for which he stands charged must be shown .... Evidence of extraneous offenses committed by the accused has been held admissible: (1) To show the context in which the criminal act occurred — what has been termed the “res gestae” — under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence. (2) To circumstantially prove identity where the state lacks direct evidence on this issue. (3) To prove scienter, where intent or guilty knowledge is an essential element of the state’s case and cannot be inferred from the act itself. (4) To prove malice or state of mind, when malice is an essential element of the State’s case and cannot be inferred from the criminal act. (5) To show the accused’s motive, particularly where the commission of the offense at bar is either conditioned upon the commission of the extraneous offense or is a part of a continuing plan or scheme of which the crime on trial is also a part. (6) To refute a defensive theory raised by the accused. (Emphasis added).”

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