Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Mosley v. State (1998), Cockrell v. State (1996)
4 federal appellate · 32 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Penry v. Lynaugh · Estelle v. Smith · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The effective dates of statutes are absolute requirements, nonwaivable and non-forfeitable; criminal defendants may not in Texas legislate the law to be applied in their case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b)On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury: (1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (2) in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken. (c) The state must prove each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury shall return a special verdict of “yes” or “no” on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article. (d) The court shall charge the jury that: [[Image here]] (2) it may not answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article "yes” unless it agrees unanimously and it may not answer any issue "no” unless 10 or more jurors agree; ... [[Image here]] (e) The court shall instruct the jury that if the jury returns an affirmative finding to each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article, it shall answer the following issue: Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the personal moral culpability of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prystash v. State“special issue required by the version of Article 37.071(b)(1) applicable to his case. On appeal, appellant claimed the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury, in accepting an incomplete and illegal verdict, and in sentencing Powell to death without the authority to do so. He insisted that since the jury never answered the requisite issue, the verdict was incomplete and illegal, and the sentence of death was not authorized. We agreed. We noted that Article 37.071 had been amended just prior to the time of Powell's trial. Among other changes, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prystash 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.