Patterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] conviction is final if a defendant is sentenced and, after ten days passes, no notice of appeal is given; finality is determined as of the date of the sentence. A conviction is final if a defendant is sentenced, after giving notice of appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals issues a mandate affirming the defendant’s convictions; finality is determined as of the date of the sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eckert v. State · White v. State

2. “Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 38.05 (Vernon 1979) prohibits a judge’s commenting on the weight of the evidence or conveying to the jury his opinion of the case. To constitute reversible error, a comment by the court in violation of article 38.05 must be reasonably calculated to prejudice the defendant’s rights or to benefit the State. Marks v. State, 617 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The Court’s explanation was in accord with the law. [citation omitted]. In our opinion, the Court’s response did not, as Appellant claims, inject new facts for the jury’s consideration, or constitute a comment on the weight of the evidence. Neither do we find that the Court’s response served to benefit the State or injure Appellant.”

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

3. “"In our opinion the statutory definition merely allows the jury to infer from evidence of a defendant's conduct that such conduct was intentional. See and compare: Davis v. State, 597 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Bowers v. State, 570 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). 'One's acts are generally reliable circumstantial evidence of his intent.' Phillips v. State, 597 S.W.2d 929 , 936 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980). We hold that the statutory definition utilized in the Court's charge properly placed on the State the burden of proof on the issue of intent."”

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