Angleton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Wood v. State (2000), Ford v. State (2009)
54 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 Ornelas v. United States · Guzman v. State · Villarreal v. State · Angleton v. State
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence . sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is • what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way^of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirement of this rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. [[Image here]] (5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at anytime under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jones v. State · Crivello v. State“(1) Testimony of Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be; (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances; and (5) Voice Identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ballard v. State“could not also state that the tape accurately represented the actual scene or event at the time it occurred.” Id. at 322-23 . Angleton found fault in Kephart's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Fowler 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.