Moreno v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Harris v. State (1989), Stoker v. State (1989)
81 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t has long been the rule in this State that the jury is entitled to know all the relevant surrounding facts and circumstances of the charged offense; an offense is not tried in a vacuum.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Casarez v. State · Fowler v. State“"First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. Secondly, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense." Royster, supra, at 446 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dowden v. State · Allridge v. State“I, for one, am unable to believe that an involuntary separation from one’s spouse is sufficient reason or cause that would warrant that person killing six persons in three separate locations in a cold, calculating and brutal manner_” 5 . Specifically, appellant’s points of error are: Point of Error Number One: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING APPELLANTS REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE. THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN PENRY V LYNAUGH, AND REFUSAL TO INCLUDE THE REQUESTED CHARGE CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR. Point of Error Number Two: THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY STATUTE, ARTICLE 37.071 C.C.P. IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT IN THAT THE JURY WAS UNABLE TO EXPRESS ITS "REASONED MORAL RESPONSE”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Joiner 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.