LaPoint v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Warner v. State (2008), Gear v. State (2011)
46 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 Francis v. Franklin · Almanza v. State · Aguilar v. State · Garrett v. State · Moss 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about February 26, 2007, in Fort Bend County, Texas, the defendant, JOHN PAUL MCINTOSH, did enter a building then and there owned, occupied or used as a habitation by Maria Alcantar, without the effective consent of the Maria Alcantar, with the intent to assault, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged. Unless you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “Not Guilty” and consider the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about February 26, 2007 in Fort Bend County, Texas, the defendant, John Paul Mcintosh [sic] did intentionally or knowingly did [sic] enter a building then and there owned, occupied or used as a habitation by Maria Alcantar, without the effective consent of the [sic] Maria Al-cantar, then you will find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. Unless you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “Not Guilty.” You are instructed that it is a defense to prosecution that a person through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if her [sic] mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense charged. By the term “reasonable belief’ is meant a be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McINTOSH v. State““The degree of actual harm [in an Al-manza ‘some harm’ analysis] must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel, and any other relevant information revealed in the record. Almanza, supra, at 171 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Belyeu 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.