Bruno v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2013
13 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 McQueen v. State · Oakley v. State · Musgrave v. State · Gardner v. State · Bruno 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The charge provided in pertinent part: Our law provides that a person commits the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle if he intentionally or knowingly operates another’s motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner. [[Image here]] A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 21st day of November, 1991, in Harris County, Texas, the defendant, Earl Clarence Smith, did then and there intentionally or knowingly operate a motor-propelled vehicle, namely, an automobile, owned by Theo E. Nelson without the effective consent of Theo E. Nelson, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “Not Guilty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“The court’s charge to the jury tracks the language of section 31.07. The culpable mental state submitted in the charge properly modifies both “operate a motor-propelled vehicle” as well as “without the effective consent of Joann Peevy.” Accordingly, the charge properly placed the burden upon the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant knew that he did not have the effective consent of the complainant to operate her automobile.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“The jury heard both stories. As they would have necessarily been required to disbelieve appellant’s story before they could find sufficient evidence to convict, the instruction need not have been given in the instant case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Traylor 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.