Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 768 SW2D 481 - Brooks v. State

Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1997
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 209th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Almanza v. State · Rose v. State · Cobarrubio v. State · Jackson v. State · Stanfield 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Rose II [ 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986) ] the court [of criminal appeals] told us to apply the rule 81(b)(2) harmless error test. Under that test, the State has the burden to prove the parole instruction played no role in the jury’s assessment of punishment. At the same time Rose II told us to apply the rule 81(b)(2) test, it also told us to presume the jury followed the statutory and curative instructions to disregard the parole instruction. This presents us with a problem: How can we place the burden on the State and at the same time apply the presumption? If we require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the parole instruction did not contribute to the sentence, we must reverse almost all cases. If, however, we presume the jury did not consider the parole instructions, we must affirm all cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.