Coble v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Jones v. State (1996), Dewberry v. State (1999)
6 federal appellate · 55 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh · Scharffe v. Perkins · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““You are instructed that when you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider all relevant mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the State or the defendant. A mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the defendant’s character, background, record, emotional instability, intelligence or circumstances of the crime which you believe could make a death sentence inappropriate in this case. If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and thereafter, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant’s personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response to the personal culpability of the defendant, a negative finding should be given to that special issue under consideration.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mason v. State“By the term “reasonable belief’ as herein used is meant a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the Defendant. By the term “deadly force” is meant force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. Upon the law of self-defense you are instructed that a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force against the other as described above; and if a reasonable person in the Defendant’s situation would not have retreatedand when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. [Emphasis added.] 5”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Osby v. State“claiming it shifted the burden of proof to appellant to establish mitigating evidence, it was confusing and did not give the jury a clear means to give mitigating effect to any mitigating circumstances, and it violated the jury’s oath to answer the special issues truthfully”); Robertson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 701, 710-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (rejecting defendant's contention that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Staley
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.