Arline v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
233 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 233 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Ngo v. State (2005), Alvarado v. State (1995)
233 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 Almanza v. State · Mosley v. State · Jones v. State · MacDougall v. State · Arline 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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he jury should be instructed that they should convict him of the lesser of the two lesser included offenses. So we would object and request the Court include a paragraph that says, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s guilty of capital murder on the one hand or of felony murder on the other hand, but you have a reasonable doubt as to which offense he is guilty, then you must find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense of felony murder. 7”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacIas v. State · Coleman v. State“"To warrant a conviction of the defendant, [appellant], of capital murder, you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt not only that on the occasion in question the defendant, [appellant], was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the felony offense of burglary of a habitation of [the deceased], as defined in the charge, but also that during the commission of the burglary of a habitation or attempted commission thereof, if any, the defendant, [appellant], caused the death of [the deceased], by cutting said [the deceased] with a knife, a deadly weapon, or by striking said [the deceased] with a blunt object, a deadly weapon, the exact nature and description of which is unknown to the Grand Jurors, with the intention of thereby killing said [the deceased]. Unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, [appellant], on said occasion, specifically intended to kill the said [the deceased] when he cut said [the deceased] with a knife, a deadly weapon, or when he struck said [the deceased] with a blunt object, a deadly weapon, the exact nature and description of which is unknown to the Grand Jurors, if he did cut said [the deceased] with a knife, a deadly weapon, or strike [the deceased] with a blunt object, a deadly weapon, the exact nature and description of which is unknown to the Grand Jurors, you cannot convict the defendant, [appellant] of the offense of capital murder. "Now if you find from the evidence beyond a rea”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Solomon v. State · Bruton v. State“Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action upon appeal that any requirement of Articles 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. All objections to the charge and to the refusal of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Benavides v. State · Ex Parte Smith
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.