Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 853 SW2D 527 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Santellan v. State (1997), Dowthitt v. State (1996)

72 state decisions

4601992200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh · Enmund v. Florida · Jurek v. Texas · Skipper v. South Carolina

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

  1. “[i]f, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"(b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury: (1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result; (2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; * * * * * * (e) If the jury returns an affirmative finding on each issue submitted under this article, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the juty returns a negative finding on any issue submitted under this article, the court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for life."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The facts at the guilt stage of the trial alone can often be sufficient to support the affirmative finding of the jury to the special issues at the penalty stage of the trial. Williams v. State, 773 S.W.2d 525, 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 900 [ 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 207 ] (1989). ‘A jury must find “a moment of deliberation and the determination on the actor to kill” before it is justified in answering “yes” to special issue number one.’ Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84, 95-96 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). The determination of deliberateness must be found from the totality of the circumstances.” Johnson v. State, 853 S.W.2d 527, 531 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.