Templin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Montgomery v. State (1991), Guevara v. State (2004)
47 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 Albrecht v. State · Carlsen v. State · Houston v. State · Wilson v. State · Williams 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The case law in our jurisdiction has also established that prior misconduct evidence may be relevant to and properly admitted to show malice, the existence of a scheme or plan or to refute a defensive theory. Albrecht v. State, supra. [Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) ] As this Court has stated in the Williams case, there is no hard and fast rule concerning when and under what circumstances evidence of prior misconduct will be admitted into evidence. Rather, the circumstances which justify the admission of this form of evidence are as varied as the factual circumstances of each case wherein the question arises. See Albrecht v. State, at 100. (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Waddell v. State“First, it must be determined that the extraneous offense evidence is relevant to a material issue in the case other than the defendant’s character. Second, the evidence must possess probative value which outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial effect. * # * * * * If there is a reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to either the conviction or the punishment assessed, then the error was not harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hager 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.