Demouchette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 61 state decisions

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(b) A challenge for cause may be made by the State for any of the following reasons: "1. That the juror has conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the punishment of death for crime, in a capital case, where the State is seeking the death penalty; "2. That he is related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to the defendant; and "3. That he has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment. "(c) A challenge for cause may be made by the defense for any of the following reasons: "1. That he is related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to the person injured by the commission of the offense, or to any prosecutor in the case; and “2. That he has a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeBlanc v. State · Caldwell v. State

2. “Liability as Primary Actor You must determine whether the state has proved the defendant committed the crime by his own conduct. To prove this, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, two elements. The elements are that— 1. The defendant, in Bowie County, Texas, on or about August 28, 2012, caused the death of Troydricus Lamar Robinson with a firearm; and 2. The defendant was then and there in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery of Troydricus Lamar Robinson. If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, both elements 1 and 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lincecum v. State · Kennedy Dewayne Riley v. State

3. ““The indictment fails to give sufficient notice of what the Defendant must be prepared to meet in that it fails to allege: a) which of the definitions of the phrase % the course of committing and attempting to commit robbery’, provided by Sec. 29.01 (1), and Sec. 31.03, supra, the State intends to prove at trial: b) which of the means of ‘unlawfully’, as defined by Sec. 1.07(a)(36), supra, by which the State intends to prove the conduct was committed; c) which of the definitions of ‘intentionally’, as defined by Sec. 6.03(a), supra, by which the State intends to prove the conduct was committed[;] d) the particular type of ‘firearm’, as defined by Sec. 46.01(3), supra, with which the State intends to prove was used in the shooting.[; and] e) that the Defendant voluntarily engaged in the conduct set forth in the indictment. The indictment fails to meet the requirements of Articles 21.02 (7), 21.03 and 21.11, V.A.C.C.P.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crank v. State