Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 958 S.W.2d 853 - Fowler v. State

Fowler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Fowler v. State (1999), Reeves v. State (1998)

53 state decisions

290199820002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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

  1. “we review the entire record to determine whether the error had more than a slight influence on the verdict. If we find that it did, we must conclude that the error affected the defendant’s rights in such a way as to require a new trial. If we have grave doubts about its effect on the outcome, we should find that the error was such as to require a new trial. Otherwise, we should disregard the error.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In applying the test for “harmless error,” our primary question is what effect the error had, or reasonably may have had, upon the jury’s decision. We must view the error, not in isolation, but in relation to the entire proceedings. An error is harmless if the reviewing court, after viewing the entire record, determines that no substantial rights of the defendant were affected because the error did not influence or had only a slight influence on the verdict. Stated another way, an error is harmless if the court is sure, after reviewing the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or had but a very slight effect on its verdict. [[Image here]] The error must have affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings. That is to say, if we have “grave doubts” about whether an error did not affect the outcome, we must treat the error as if it did. “Grave doubt,” means that, “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” The uncertain judge should treat the error, not as if it were harmless, but as if it affected the verdict (i.e., as if it had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “• accurately states the law; • is authorized by the information; • does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessari ly restrict the State’s theories of liability; and • adequately describes the offense for which the defendant was tried.”
    2 later decisions 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.