Garrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2005
22 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 Romo v. State · Ransonette v. State · Thomas v. State · Garrett v. State
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A charge on transferred intent is by its nature favorable to the State and detrimental to the defendant. With the provisions of Sec. 6.04(b)(2) omitted from the charge, the prosecution is presented with the greater burden of proving a “knowing” act in which the defendant was aware that her conduct was reasonably certain to cause the actual result rather than merely the desired result. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 6.03(b). It would seem quite possible that a defendant might intentionally fail to object to a jury charge which omite a proper application of transferred intent in order to require the State to meet this greater burden.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garrett v. State · Jackson v. State“" ‘In circumstances where a defendant, if guilty at all, is guilty as a party, then the court should properly apply the law of parties to the facts of the case, but the failure to do so is not reversible error unless there is a timely and sufficient objection.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kelly v. State · Minor v. State“... [I]n the present case, appellant was convicted of the offense of murder. Although a proper charge on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter would have contained the application of Sec. 6.04(b)(2), since appellant was convicted of murder any error could not constitute fundamental error under the logic of Thomas, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Biegajski 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.