Queen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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

1. “[Appellant] ... did then and there while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent to obtain and maintain control of the property, [Paragraph One] intentionally and knowingly caused serious bodily injury to Lora Thurman, by striking her with a crowbar.... [Paragraph Two] intentionally and knowingly threatened and placed Lora Thurman in fear of imminent bodily injury and death by using and exhibiting a deadly weapon, namely a crowbar, which in the manner of its use and intended use is capable of causing serious bodily injury and death.... [Paragraph Three] intentionally and knowingly caused bodily injury to Lora Thurman, a person older than 65 years of age by striking her with a crowbar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gonzalez v. State

2. “In Texas, an offense is considered to be included within another if, among other things, “it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense eharged[.]” Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.09(1) (West 1981). Our statute law thus describes includedness in much the same way Blockburger describes sameness. Yet we have long considered more than merely statutory elements to be relevant in this connection.... We likewise think it reasonably clear from the various opinions in Dixon that the essential elements relevant to a jeopardy inquiry [under Blockburger ] are those of the charging instrument, not of the penal statute itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gonzalez v. State