Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2016
10 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Euziere v. State · Lowry v. State · International Fidelity Insurance Co. 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]roof the defendant was free pursuant to an instanter bond constitutes a prima facie showing ... [which] will satisfy the State’s burden of proving a culpable mental state in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. But where, as in the instant cause, there is evidence the defendant did not, in fact, have notice of the proceeding in question, the State must do more than prove the terms of the bond in order to meet its burden of proving an intentional or knowing failure to appear. In such cases, the State must offer evidence that the defendant did have actual notice, or that he engaged in a course of conduct designed to prevent him from receiving notice. (Emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A person lawfully released from custody, with or without bail, on condition that he subsequently appear commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly fails to appear in accordance with the terms of his release. [[Image here]] (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor had a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear in accordance with the terms of his release.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“THE CONDITION OF THIS BOND is that the defendant (principal) has been charged with a (felony) (misdemeanor) offense; to wit: CHARGE: Possession of Controlled Subst. and to secure his release from custody is entering into this obligation binding him to appear before the proper COURT of RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS, as he may be directed. NOW THEREFORE, IF THE SAID PRINCIPAL SHALL WELL AND TRULY MAKE HIS PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE SAID COURT INSTANTER as well as before any other court to which the same may be transferred and for any and all subsequent proceeding[s] that may be had relative to said charge in the course of criminal actions based on said charge, and there remain from day to day and term of said courts, until discharged by due course of law, then and there to answer said accusation against him, his obligation shall become void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.