Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Torres v. State (1990), Romero v. State (1986)
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 Ahumada v. United States · Quinones v. State · Ely v. State · Blaylock v. State · Mott 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.
“It must be remembered that the conduct of the accused showing a consciousness of guilt, such as the suppression of the testimony of a witness, would be admissible as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged. Love v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 27 , 29 S.W. 790 ; Savage v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 213 , 170 S.W. 730 ; Maddox v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 5 , 288 S.W.2d 780 .... ‘The defendant or any other witness is entitled to explain any fact tending to create a distrust of his integrity of truthfulness.’ Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2nd Edition, Volume 1, p. 133, Section 17. Antwine v. State, 572 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), at page 543. Thus, this Court has allowed admission of extraneous offenses for this purpose. ... We find that the evidence that appellant possessed a gun and made threats to kill L_M_’s family was admissible as showing an effort on his part to suppress and destroy evidence against him. McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence (3rd Edition 1980), Section 1538, page 242. The evidence is also admissible to explain why L_M_did not make an immediate outcry. 48 Tex.Jur.2d Rape, Section 59.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Torres v. State“The general rule is that a female who consents to or voluntarily enters into an incestuous intercourse is an accomplice witness. Bolin v. State, 505 S.W.2d 912 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Conversely, if the incestuous intercourse is compelled by force, threats, fraud or undue influence, the victim is not an accomplice witness. Bolin v. State, supra. If the victim is found to be an accomplice witness, then there must be other evidence tending to connect the accused with the offense. [TEX.CODE CRJM.PRO.ANN. art. 38.14 (Vernon 1979)]. If there is no such corroboration, the evidence will be deemed insufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that [the daughter] was compelled to participate in incestuous intercourse with appellant through the use of force, threats and undue influence. Thus, [the daughter] is not an accomplice, her testimony need not be otherwise corroborated, and the evidence connecting appellant with the acts of intercourse is sufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCrory v. State“The sexual passion or desire of X for Y is relevant to show the probability that X did an act realizing that desire. On the principle set out above, this desire at the time in question may be evidenced by proof of its existence at a prior or subsequent time. Its existence at such other time may, of course, be shown by any conduct which is the natural expression of such desire.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Blakeney 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.