Vera v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2019
15 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 226th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Cannon v. State · Johnson v. State · Denison v. State · McKenzie v. State · Combs 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 2 (a) This article applies only to statements that describe the alleged offense that: (1) were made by the child against whom the offense was allegedly committed; and (2) were made to the first person, 18 years of age or older, other than the defendant, to whom the child made a statement about the defense. (b) A statement that meets the requirements of Subsection (a) of this article is not inadmissible because of the hearsay rule if: (1) [notice is provided to the defendant before trial by furnishing the name of the outcry witness and a written summary of the statement]; (2) the trial court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the statement is reliable based on the time, content, and circumstances of the statement; 2 and (3) the child testifies or is available to testify at the proceeding in court or in any other manner provided by law. (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodriguez v. State“As we said in the recent case of [King ] “[I]t is a well recognized exception to the general prohibition against hearsay evidence, that statements made while in the grip of violent emotion, excitement or pain, and which relate to the exciting event, are admissible under the rationale that the capacity for reflection necessary to the fabrication of a falsehood is lost.” Further, “Such statements may be admissible even [when made in response to an inquiry or] after an appreciable time has elapsed between the infliction of the injury and the making of the statement.” Martinez v. State, 533 S.W.2d 20, 23 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Barnhart 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.