Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. A person commits murder when he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. 2. Our law provides that a person commits capital murder when such person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person while such person is in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery. ***** . Before you would be warranted in convicting the defendant, Tammi Abbott, a/k/a Tammi Rivera Abbott, of capital murder, you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt not only that on the occasion in question the defendant, Tammi Abbott, a/k/a Tammi Rivera Abbott, either acting alone or as party with Federico Rivera, was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the felony offense of robbery, if any, of Keith Nordyke and Jean Nordyke, as defined in this charge, but also that during the commission of the felony offense of robbery or attempted commission thereof, if any, the Defendant, Tammi Abbott, a/k/a Tammi Rivera Abbott, either acting alone or as a party with Federico Rivera, intentionally or knowingly strangled with a wire or stabbed with a knife Keith Nordyke and stabbed with a knife Jean Nordyke with the intention of causing the death of both. Unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Tammi Abbott, a/k/a Tammi Rivera Abbott, acting alone or as a party with Federico Rivera, on the occasion in question, specifically intended to kill the said Keith Nordyke when she strangled him with”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alvarado v. State · Abbott v. State

2. “In capital cases, however, it is ordinarily immaterial that the State had strikes remaining at the end of the voir dire examination. If the trial court erroneously sustains a State’s challenge for cause over defense objection during individual voir dire in a capital case, this has the immediate effect of giving the State an additional peremptory strike. Grijalva v. State, 614 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). As stated in Grijalva, supra at 424: “The manner of exercising peremptory challenges is explicitly differentiated in Arts. 35.13 and 35.25, V.A.C.C.P. The procedure followed in Chambers [v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) ] and this case is stated in Art. 35.13, supra: ‘A juror in a capital case in which the state has made it known it will seek the death penalty, held to be qualified, shall be passed for acceptance or challenge first to the state and then to the defendant. Challenges to jurors are either peremptory or for cause.’ ” On the other hand, in non-capital eases, such as those upon which Chambers relied, the procedure is quite different, as provided in Art. 35.25, supra: “‘In non-capital cases and in capital eases in which the State’s attorney has announced that he will not qualify the jury for, or seek the death penalty, the party desiring to challenge any juror peremptorily shall strike the name of such juror from the list furnished him by the clerk.’ ” To allow the State to render harmless the improper challenge for cause and exeu-sal of a venire member b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. State

3. “assigned to the law library to help other prisoners with their legal problems by writing letters, preparing pleadings, and otherwise giving them whatever advice he could,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Melendez