Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 SW2D 395 - Marras v. State

Marras v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Madden v. State (1990), Green v. Johnson (1997)

1 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

5401987199020002010decided

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 · Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas · Almanza 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The videotape complained of herein has been reviewed by this Court and contains no audio portion, only video, i.e. motion pictures. Motion pictures are just a collection of photographs and the rules surrounding admission are the same as those for still photographs. Housewright v. State, [ 154 Tex.Cr.R. 101 ], 225 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1949). Motion pictures are admissible when they are properly authenticated relevant to an issue, and not violative of the rules of evidence for the admissibility of photographs when a verbal description of a scene is admissible, a photograph or video recording of the scene would also be admissible. Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); see Burdine v. State, 719 S.W.2d 309, 316 ....” 7”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “correct for the theory of the case presented[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The credibility of evidence and whether it is controverted or conflicts with other evidence in the case may not be considered in determining whether a defensive charge or an instruction on a lesser included offense should be given. When evidence from any source raises a defensive issue or raises an issue that a lesser included offense may have been committed and a jury charge on the issue is properly requested, the issue must be submitted to the jury. It is then the jury’s duty, under the proper instructions, to determine whether the evidence is credible and supports the defense or the lesser included offense.”
    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.