Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 SW3D 413 - Ward v. State

Ward v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Francis v. Franklin · Almanza 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Thus, while the court of criminal appeals has not held that the precise instruction challenged in the case now before us constitutes a comment on the weight of the evidence, we nevertheless find that it is sufficiently similar to the language that the court has held to be erroneous to cause concern. Taken in the context in which it was given, the instruction improperly tells the jury how to consider certain evidence before it. While it is indeed permissible for a jury to infer mental culpability from an accused’s acts, words, and conduct, the trial court may not instruct the jury that it may apply such an inference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “we reject the State’s argument ... that Appellant has forfeited his complaint of error in the jury charge” by stating he had”
    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.