Torres v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably State v. Johnson (2004), Yohey v. State (1990)
26 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 In re Disbarment of McManus · Albrecht v. State · Crank v. State · Johnson v. State · Cantrell 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A ‘consciousness of guilt’ is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of a crime subsequent to its commission, which indicates a ‘consciousness of guilt’ may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wallis v. State · Madden v. State“Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as that evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. It is at least subject to reasonable debate whether a subsequent, almost identical offense tends to show [defendant’s] knowledge that the substance he possessed on the occasion involved here was illegal.... We believe that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that this subsequent act tended to make more probable the allegation that [defendant] intended to deliver the cocaine involved in the present offense.... The fact that the extraneous conduct occurred after the acts constituting the offense on trial does not render the evidence inadmissible under Rule UQk(b). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. (Citations omitted; Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mason v. State“Attempts by a party to suppress or fabricate evidence have been held admissible against a witness. Johnson v. State, 583 S.W.2d 399, 409 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); ... see also Garza v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 468 , 358 S.W.2d 622, 623 (1962) (efforts of an accused to induce a witness to testify falsely may be shown as indicating a consciousness of guilt); Richard v. State, 97 Tex.Crim. 448 , 261 S.W. 587 (1924) (proof that the accused threatened or attempted to intimidate a State’s witness is admissible);....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wallis 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.