Ochoa v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Burke v. State (2000), Hutchins v. State (1999)
39 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 McIntire v. State · Cunningham v. State · Ochoa 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire” is part of the definition of “sexual contact.” I find it significant that the Legislature chose to use the words “sexual contact” — denoting a lesser form of touching than “penetration” — and included the “intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire” in the definitional section. That legislative choice supports the conclusion that the “sexual desire” wording was not intended as an extra element not contained in the sexual assault statutes. Rather, the “sexual desire” language appears to be intended to denote a form of touching, short of penetration, that is sexual in nature. While it may be theoretically possible to commit the various forms of penetration proscribed without the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, the Legislature’s inclusion of these acts within the sexual assault statutes is a clear indication that the Legislature believed the acts to be inherently sexual in nature. But, a mere touching may not be inherently sexual, and hence, the Legislature needed to define the conduct in such a way as to indicate its sexual nature. Hence, touching the female sexual organ with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is a lesser-included species of conduct of the intentional or knowing penetration of the female sexual oi'gan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. State“•appellant engaged in sexual contact with K.H. by touching her genitals (count one) and breast (count two); •with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and •K.H. was a child under 17 and not appellant’s spouse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Elder v. State“[A]ppellant was shown in this case to have committed one act which could be subject to two different interpretations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JH
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.