Harrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Mata v. State (2001), Burleson v. State (1991)
25 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 158 Tex. Crim. 313 - Hill v. State · Cody v. State · French v. State · Palafox v. State · Bumpus 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] the existence of periodic supervision over the machine and operation by one who understands scientific theory of the machine; and [2] proof of the result of the test by a witness or witnesses qualified to translate and interpret such result so as to eliminate hearsay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ly v. State · Shannon v. State“(c) All breath testing techniques, in order to be approved shall meet but not be limited to the following: (1) Continuous observation of the subject for a minimum period of time as set by the Scientific Director prior to collection of the breath specimen during which time the subject must not have ingested alcoholic beverages or other fluids, regurgitated, vomited, eaten, smoked, or introduced any substances into the mouth. (2) The breath alcohol testing instrument and allied equipment must be operated by either a certified operator or Technical Supervisor and only certified personnel will have access to the instrument. This provision will not apply to operators inactivated in accordance with § 19.4(c)(2) of this title (relating to Operator Certification). (3) The use of a system blank analysis in conjunction with the testing of each subject. (4) The analysis of a reference sample, such as headspace gas from a mixture of water and a known weight of alcohol at a constant temperature, the results of which must agree with the reference sample predicted value within + / — 0.01g/210L, or such limits as set by the Scientific Director. This reference analysis shall immediately precede or immediately follow the analysis of the breath of the subject as determined by the Scientific Director. (5) All analytical results shall be expressed in terminology established by state statute and reported to two decimal places without rounding off. (For example, a result of 0.237g/210L shall be rep”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Krager“Analysis of a specimen of the person’s breath, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, must be performed according to rules of the Texas Department of Public Safety and by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose. The Texas Department of Public Safety is authorized to establish rules approving satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analysis, and to issue certificates certifying such fact. These certificates shall be subject to termination or revocation, for cause, at the discretion of the Texas Department of Public Safety.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Krager
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.