Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 SW2D 636 - Moreno v. State

Moreno v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

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

1801986199020002010decided

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.

  1. “"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 passage
  2. “(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 passage
  3. “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 passage

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.