State v. Winskey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Candy Morris, defendant, while intoxicated, namely, not having the normal use of her mental and physical faculties by the reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances into her body, did then and there drive and operate a motor vehicle in a public place.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sullivan v. State · Morris v. State

2. “the elements of the offense are that: (1) a person (2) drives or operates (3) a mo tor vehicle (4) in a public place (5) while intoxicated. In addition, there are four manners in which a defendant’s conduct may lead to intoxication: (1) ingestion of alcohol, (2) ingestion of a controlled substance, (3) ingestion of a drug (4) ingestion of some combination of alcohol, controlled substances, and/or drugs. If the manner or means of intoxication is by a controlled substance, drug, or a combination of substances, the State may prove intoxication in only one way — that the defendant did not have “the normal use of mental or physical faculties”.... If the State elects to prove that intoxication was due to introduction of alcohol into the body, it may prove intoxication in one of two ways, loss of faculties and alcohol content [in the blood, breath, or urine] of 0.10 or more.”

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

3. ““Because the methods of proving intoxication by alcohol are set out statutorily and do not depend on any conduct committed by a defendant, other than introduction of alcohol into the body — which was already alleged — the State need not specify in the charging instrument whether it will use loss of faculties or alcohol content to prove the offense.” 787 S.W.2d at 391 .”

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