Cantu v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Wesbrook v. State (2000), Ladd v. State (1999)
5 federal appellate · 97 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Ake v. Oklahoma · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Penry v. Lynaugh · Payne v. Tennessee
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The danger of unfair prejudice to a defendant inherent in the introduction of “victim impact” evidence with respect to a victim not named in the indictment on which he is being tried is unacceptably high. The admission of such evidence would open the door to admission of victim impact evidence arising from any extraneous offense committed by a defendant. Extraneous victim impact evidence, if anything, is more prejudicial than the non-extraneous victim impact evidence.... [S]uch evidence is irrelevant under Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 401.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Roberts v. Thaler · Haley v. State“(1) the circumstances of the capital offense, including the defendant’s state of mind and whether he was acting alone or with other parties; (2) the calculated nature of the defendant’s acts; (3) the forethought and deliberateness exhibited by the crime’s execution; (4) the existence of a prior criminal record and the severity of the prior crimes; (5) the defendant’s age and personal circumstances at the time of the offense; (6) whether the defendant was acting under duress or the domination of another at the time of the commission of the offense; (7) psychiatric evidence; and (8) character evidence. 33”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Reese v. State · Mays v. State“(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) 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 the defendant, there is a sufficient or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Reese v. State · 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.