Almanza v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1,672 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,679 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Harris v. State (1989), Rose v. State (1988)
1,672 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 Cumbie v. State · Cobarrubio v. State · Braudrick v. State · Dowden v. State · Doyle v. State
Cited together with Jackson v. Virginia · Strickland v. Washington · Hutch v. State · Highwarden v. State · Arline 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 1,679 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 was 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.””
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he 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 argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.”
35 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action upon appeal that any requirement of Articles 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. All objections to the charge and to the refusal of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Elliott v. State · Olivas 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.