Cobarrubio v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Almanza v. State (1985), Rose v. State (1988)
95 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 Hawkins v. State · Braudrick v. State · Doyle v. State · Garcia v. State · Humphries 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For an example of a proper charge see McClung, Jury Charges for Texas Criminal Practice (Jan.1981) 47, 48, which states in pertinent part: “4. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the _ day of_, 19_ in _County, Texas, the defendant, AB, did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual, CD by shooting him with a gun, and that the defendant, in so acting, was not acting under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, then you will find the defendant guilty of murder, as charged in the indictment. 5. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the _day of_, 19_in_County, Texas, the defendant, AB, did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual, CD, by shooting him with a gun, but you further find and believe from the facts and circumstances in evidence in the case that the defendant, in killing the deceased, if he did, acted under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether he so acted under the immediate influence of a sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, then you will find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.: See also Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges, CPJC 19.02(VM) at 119-120.” (emphasis theirs)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““With the ... issue of ‘sudden passion’ deleted from the paragraph on murder and placed only in the voluntary manslaughter paragraph ... there exists a decided likelihood that a jury would affirmatively answer the murder paragraph, never having considered the ... issue of sudden passion.... Thus, if the jurors followed the court’s instructions to the letter — indeed, we must presume they did — the State’s burden of proof was significantly diminished and appellant was denied an opportunity to have the jury determine his guilt on the issue of murder as [that offense is defined by Texas law].” [Emphasis in original]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Ruiz v. State“"... [If] you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that on or about the 23rd day of May, 1978, in the County of Lubbock and State of Texas, as alleged in the indictment, the defendant, JOE MARTINEZ COBARRUBIO, did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual, Javier Gutierrez, by shooting him with a gun, then you will find the defendant, JOE MARTINEZ COBARRU-BIO, guilty of murder as charged in the indictment. Unless you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant is guilty of murder, then you will acquit him of murder and next consider whether he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Birdwell v. State · Hafley 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.