Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 SW3D 719 - Phillips v. State

Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Almanza v. State · Geesa v. State · City of Los Angeles v. Department of Transportation · Highwarden v. State · Paulson 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “According to Paulson , when the court is evaluating a jury charge for a reasonable-doubt-definition error, we must first determine if a definition of reasonable doubt exists in the jury charge. If not, the charge does not violate Paulson . In our case, the trial court instructed the jury “it is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all doubt.” This instruction does not lessen the State’s burden of proof, especially in light of the second sentence which correctly repeats the State’s burden that, “it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt.” The charge was proper because it did not define reasonable doubt — it merely instructed the jury that appellant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all possible doubt.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Here the trial court extracted two lines from the reasonable-doubt instruction in Geesa and gave them to the jury. Because the Court of Criminal Appeals was clear on the point — give it all if the parties agree or give none of it — we hold it was error to give part of the Geesa instruction in the absence of an agreement.”
    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.