Burns v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garrett v. State · Chambers v. State

2. “Over the past dozen years this Court has articulated its standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence to support an affirmative answer to special issue two in a number of ways. We have consistently said we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s answer, e.g., Starvaggi v. State, 593 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (footnote deleted), without clearly explicating what view of the evidence would be the most favorable in light of the jury’s constitutional function to weigh any proffered evidence in mitigation. In other instances, seemingly more mindful of that function, we have held that the evidence was such that ‘the jury was justified in finding that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors[,]’ e.g., Duffy v. State, 567 S.W.2d 197, 209 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Demouchette v. State, 591 S.W.2d 488, 492 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); thus suggesting ‘a more substance review’ than had been conducted in other cases. See Dix, Appellate Review of the Decision to Impose Death, 68 Geo.L.J. 97, 151 (1979). As if to disown that notion, however, the Court has at least on one occasion combined these two pronouncements, finding that ‘the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient for the jury to have found that the mitigating factors introduced by appellant did not outweigh the aggravating factors and that there is a probability that appellant would commit acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.’ ”

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

3. “to the second special issue. [3] However, none of the cases requires a particular jury, or an individual juror, to answer the second special issue affirmatively solely on the facts of that particular offense. Many of the cases relied upon by the State speak of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's affirmative answer to special issue number two. [4] This is an appellate standard of review, a minimum”

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