Cuevas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Of course, application of the law of parties at the guilt phase means it is possible for a non-triggerman, such as [the defendant], to be convicted of a capital offense. However, a capital defendant will be assessed the death penalty only if the jury answers the special issues of Art. 37.071(b) in the affirmative. Special issue number one requires the jury to determine ‘whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result.’ Because the law of parties may not be applied in answering this issue, an affirmative verdict is possible only when the jury finds that the defendant’s own conduct satisfies both parts of special issue number one. Therefore, the first special issue of Art. 37.071(b) includes the Enmund and Tison [v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987)] findings. The Supreme Court opinions in Enmund [Cabana v.] B ullock[, 474 U.S. 376 , 106 S.Ct. 689 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986)] and Tison have placed no additional burden on the Texas capital sentencing scheme.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Beltran, Ricardo v. State

2. ““Q. Okay. Ma’am, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions briefly on what we call mitigating circumstances. Let’s suppose that you know, like there was evidence introduced at the trial that, you know, a person came from a you know, a broken home or on family situation, or you know, there had been sex abuse or beatings or, you know, just didn’t grow up in the best home environment. Can you consider a broken family home or that bad family situation to be a mitigating circumstance? “A. Not really. There is help that you can get. You don’t have to go commit a crime. I’ve lived a rough life myself with home life and I haven’t gone out and done a bunch of wrongs. “Q. So you feel that you could not consider— “A. Using a broken home for an excuse of a murder? “Q. Yes, ma’am. “A. No, I can not. “Q. So, Ms. Walts, if you heard some evidence, you know, that there was a broken family life or you know, a bad family life, do you think you could consider that when you were answering the special issues? “A. I don’t see why a broken home would cause a person to go out and kill a person. “The Court: What they’re asking you is can you consider mitigation to me may not be to you. (sic) The Defense has an opportunity to offer anything that they believe might be mitigation of in answer to these two special issue number one, you may consider it answer to special issue number two. The number two says whether there’s a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would const”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. State · Coleman v. State

3. ““[T]he trier of fact must not be precluded from considering any relevant mitigating evidence in answering the special issues. However, the cases do not mandate that the trier of fact must give any specified weight to a particular piece of evidence, [citation omitted]. ‘The amount of weight that the fact-finder might give any particular piece of mitigating evidence is left to “the range of judgment and discretion exercised by each juror.” ’ ” [citations omitted]. “The law only requires that the defendant be permitted to introduce relevant mitigating evidence. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the law does not require the jurors to consider his two hypothetical factors as mitigating.” (emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garcia v. State · Allridge v. State