Castillo-Fuentes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2015
22 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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Almanza v. State · Connecticut v. Johnson · Moore v. State · Cobarrubio 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) `Sudden passion' means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation. (c) `Adequate cause' means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Goff v. State · Ruiz v. State““During jury deliberations ... the jury sent the following note to the court: ‘Are the charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter to be considered independently or must the charge of murder be first deliberated as directed before proceeding to deliberation of voluntary manslaughter?’ This exchange appears to complicate our fundamental error assessment. It can be interpreted to mean that the jury did indeed consider the entire charge, since they obviously were considering the possibility of voluntary manslaughter as well as a conviction for murder. Therefore, it could be argued that there could not possibly be ‘a decided likelihood that a jury would affirmatively answer the murder paragraph, never having considered the defensive issue of sudden passion.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ruiz v. State“Now, bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, John Stephen Hafley, on or about the 22nd day of March, A.D., 1987, in the County of Dallas, and State of Texas, as alleged in the Information did then and there knowingly carry on or about his person a handgun, you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the Information, and you will make no finding in this verdict as to punishment. If you do not so find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict Not Guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hafley 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.