Lynch v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably McQueen v. State (1989), Woodfox v. State (1987)
25 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 Musgrave v. State · Montgomery v. State · London v. State · Lynch 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gardner v. State · King v. State“The offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle requires proof of the forbidden conduct and the attendant circumstances of the crime. The State had to show at a minimum that the appellant knowingly operated the motor vehicle of another (the conduct element) without the effective consent of the owner (the attendant circumstances element). Under the approach adopted by Section 6.03 the mental state requirement applies to the attendant circumstances element as well as to the conduct element of the offense. A person acts knowingly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware that the circumstances exist. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 6.03(b). In other words, knowledge that the requisite external circumstances exist is an element of the instant offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gardner v. State“The question is whether the defensive evidence raised the issue of mistake of fact, because if it did appellant was entitled to an affirmative submission of the issue. [Citations omitted.] [[Image here]] ... Here appellant presented evidence that his use of the van was with the permission of the person who gave him the keys and who was apparently authorized to consent to use of the vehicle. To hold such innocent use is no defense would be to make Sec. 31.07, supra, a strict liability offense. The evidence raised the issue of whether appellant was operating under a mistake of fact. It was error to refuse the requested charge on that defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McQueen 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.