Maynard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Thomas v. State (1986), Leday v. State (1998)
109 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 Chapman v. State of California · Albrecht v. State · Zillender v. State · Maddox v. State · Mitchell 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]uch testimony does not act as a waiver of the right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence originally admitted.” Id. 11 . See TexR.Crim. Evid. 402. 12 . The court’s ruling indicates that the court believed Smith had opened the door to this inquiry- 13 . Texas A & M University System. 14 . Prior to his testimony about the solicitation policy. 15 . Based on his responses, Mobley’s references to”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no waiver occurs when, after the admission over objection of evidence of an extraneous offense, the defendant testifies to essentially the same facts to which he had earlier objected. This is sound policy because it is fair policy. An extraneous offense is collateral to the facts in issue at trial and is inherently prejudicial. That it actually took place does not affect the lack of relevance. To require the defendant to sit mute in the face of such harmful evidence to preserve the issue for appellate review is to unfairly hamstring the defendant at trial. Once the evidence is admitted, correctly or incorrectly, the defendant is compelled by the exigencies of trial to mitigate such inherently prejudicial evidence as best he or she can.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Such an extraneous offense is admissible to show the context in which the criminal act occurred; this has been termed `res gestae,' under the reasoning that events do not occur in a vacuum and that the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of that act so that they may realistically evaluate the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilkerson 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.