Bonfanti v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
April 1998
most recently cited
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Almanza v. State · King v. State · Rogers v. State · Whitchurch v. State · Wilhoit 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the error in the charge was the subject of a timely objection in the trial court, then reversal is required if the error is ‘calculated to injure the rights of defendant,’ which means no more than that there must be some harm to the accused from the error. In other words, an error which has been properly preserved by objection will call for reversal as long as the error is not harmless. “On the other hand, if no proper objection is made at trial and the accused must claim that the error was ‘fundamental,’ he will obtain a reversal only if the error is so egregious and created such harm that he ‘has not had a fair and impartial trial’ — in short ‘egregious harm.’ “In both situations the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argu ment of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza, supra, at 171 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Daniels v. State“Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravated assault on Richard William [Stolarski] would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, as charged in the indictment, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the defendant clearly insufficient, you will find the defendant criminally responsible. Unless you so find beyond a reasonable doubt or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof you will find the defendant not criminally responsible and say by your verdict “Not Guilty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mattox 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.