Moreno v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Hall v. State (2007), Kinnamon v. State (1990)
44 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 Almanza v. State · Royster v. State · Day v. State · Aguilar v. State · Lugo 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. Secondly, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense." Royster, supra, at 446 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dowden v. State · Vasquez v. State“(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dowden v. State · Mitchell v. State“Here, the appellant timely objected and as well filed a special requested charge on criminal trespass, which means there was some harm from the error. It might well be argued that the jury charge as given amply protected appellant’s rights, but the issue of intent to commit a felony or theft was for the jury. In a burglary prosecution the specific intent to steal or commit theft may be inferred from the circumstances, [citations omitted] but the lack of intent may also be inferred from the circumstances. The jury is empowered to determine the issue of intent, [citations omitted] The issue is not whether appellant’s is true or even believable. That issue is exclusively for the jury as the trier of the facts. We conclude that the error was harmful under the circumstances applying the test of Almanza.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Saunders 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.