Henson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In deciding whether a non-law enforcement questioner was acting as an agent of law enforcement, we must consider numerous factors in light of the existing circumstances. McCrory v. State, 643 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). The record as a whole must clearly establish that appellant’s statements resulted from a calculated practice which all agents of the State involved knew was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from him. Cates, 776 S.W.2d at 172 (citing McCrory, 643 S.W.2d at 743 ) [Cates v. State, 776 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) ]. In addition, we must consider whether Chandler [the questioner] was known to law enforcement personnel and whether it was reasonably likely that he would evoke or elicit an incriminating response within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Cates, 776 S.W.2d at 173 . The Henson court found Chandler was not a state agent. In Paez v. State, 681 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Tex.Crim. App.1984), the court held that the safeguards attendant to custodial interrogation do not come into play unless the person to whom the statements are made is acting pursuant to a police practice. See also Macias v. State, 733 S.W.2d 192, 195 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1059 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1988). Paez and Cates both involved investigators with the Texas Department of Human Resources. In Maci”

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

2. “[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.... A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. (Emphasis added).”

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