Lane v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 18 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riddle v. State · Morrow v. State

2. “"[PROSECUTOR:] Let me give you an example of how they differ from finding a person guilty of capital murder. Let's say that I go in and rob [Co-counsel] in the 7-Eleven store. He gives me the money and, for whatever reason I have, I'm leaving and I—it is my conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct of pulling the trigger on the gun that I have and shoot him. And I shoot him. I just so happen to shoot him in the knee and medical complications set in and he dies. That is a murder that occurred during the course of a robbery because he wouldn't have died if I hadn't shot him. You may very well go out and find me guilty of capital murder, you see? I committed the crime in Dallas County, January the 19th, had a gun, caused his death by shooting him with a gun during a robbery— [Defense counsel]: We're going to object to that hypothetical as not being substantial and the facts that would be required to substantiate a capital murder. The fact that he leaves out that he intentionally committed the murder in the course—he said he shot him. There's no requisite intent to commit the murder as required in the Capital Murder Statute. All he's given is a hypothetical that comes under the third circumstance of the statute [V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 19.02(a)(3)] and, therefore, is a death caused by an act committed in the course of a felony. We would object to that hypothetical as not being proper. THE COURT: Overruled. [Defense Counsel]: Note our exception. [Prosecutor] You see ho”

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

3. “We balanced the evidence on both sides of this sufficiency question, considering the evidence at both stages of the trial. Fierro v. State, 706 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). On the appellant’s side of the issue, he testified that the shooting was accidental as a result of the ‘hair trigger’ of his firearm. The State’s eye-witnesses disputed appellant’s version of his actions in shooting the victim. The State’s firearm expert proved that appellant’s weapon was far too stable to be considered as having a ‘hair trigger.’ On the State’s side of the case, there was the testimony of the eye-witnesses to the shooting. In addition, there was the testimony of the appellant’s cellmate. The cellmate reported the statements made by the appellant in jail. Considering all of the evidence, it reached the level of sufficiency which was described in Williams v. State, 674 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), and Smith v. State, 540 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (footnote deleted). We overrule the appellant’s fifty-first point of error. (630).”

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