Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Vasquez v. State (1992), State v. Harmon (1986)
46 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 Roy v. State · Worton v. State · Garcia v. State · Johnson 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law prescribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Cyr v. State“We agree that to allow a defense of necessity whenever anyone “felt he was in a ‘high crime’ area,” as claimed by the defendant in Roy , would violate the intent of Sec. 46.02, supra. We do not agree, however, that such reasoning demonstrates a legislative purpose to exclude the defense of necessity under Sec. 9.22(3), supra. A feeling that one is in a “high crime” area would not constitute a reasonable belief that carrying a weapon in violation of Sec. 46.02 is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm, Sec. 9.22(1), and therefore would not raise the defense even if it is available. An example of when the defense of necessity should be available can easily be imagined. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Secs. 9.33, 9.42 and 9.43 justify the use of deadly force for the protection of property or a third person. If an individual in his own home observed a situation that required taking protective action under one of those sections, but to take such action would require him to take a weapon covered by Sec. 46.02 to another location, such as his neighbor’s yard, would his conduct in carrying a handgun or club to protect his neighbor from rape or robbery (Sec. 9.33), or to recover his neighbor’s property (Sec. 9.43), or to recover his own property from a criminal who has fled beyond the victim’s premises (Sec. 9.42), be subject to conviction for unlawfully carrying the weapon? Surely the legislature intended the defense of necessity under Sec. 9.22 to be available in such circumstances. We h”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moses v. State“(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club. (b) Except as provided in Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it occurs on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anguiano 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.