Garrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Geesa v. State (1991), Malik v. State (1997)
94 state decisions
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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Rice · Almanza v. State · Morrow v. Corbin · Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Burch
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At first blush, this case seems to require that a measurement of the sufficiency of the evidence be limited to a sole consideration of the application paragraph of the jury charge. This would be misapplication of the rule enunciated in Boozer v. State ..Ortega v. State ...; and Benson v. State.... Boozer, Ortega, and Benson hold that sufficiency of the evidence be measured against the jury charge, which we interpret to mean the entire charge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman v. State · Jones v. State“'Judicial power' is the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for a decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While the State’s observation is well taken, it fails because it relies on the conclusion that the abstract charge on the law of transferred intent was sufficient to put that theory before the jury. Even a cursory reading of Garrett I, supra, belies this point: A charge on transferred intent is by its nature favorable to the State and detrimental to the defendant. With the provisions of Sec. 6.04(b)(2) omitted from the charge, the prosecution is presented with the greater burden of proving a “knowing” act in which the defendant was aware that her conduct was reasonably certain to cause the actual result rather than merely the desired result.... It would seem quite possible that a defendant might intentionally fail to object to a jury charge which omits a proper application of transferred intent in order to require the State to meet this greater burden. Garrett I, supra at 781. (emphasis theirs).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman v. State
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.