Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 662 SW2D 352 - Rodriguez v. State

Rodriguez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2002

18 state decisions

90198419902000decided

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 Norman v. State · Faulk v. State · Minton v. Frank · Bush v. State · 162 Tex. Crim. 624 - Cooper 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. (b) In this section “law enforcement agent” includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The objective entrapment test mandates that the trial court, having once determined that there was an inducement, need now consider only the nature of the State agent activity involved, without reference to the predisposition of the particular defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The issue for determination, then, is what effect the agent’s inducement would likely have upon persons general ly. The defendant’s criminal disposition is immaterial to this inquiry so, under the test of sec. 8.06, once the inducement element is established the trial court need consider only whether the methods of persuasion used were likely to induce persons not ready and willing to commit the crime to engage in the conduct charged. Where the inducement attains that level of intensity, entrapment has occurred regardless of whether the particular defendant would have committed the crime with less or no encouragement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.