Paulson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The error appears in all respects harmless. First, the trial court’s reliance on “reasonable doubt” without further amplification is logically and legally defensible. “Language that is within the comprehension of persons of ordinary intelligence can seldom be made plainer by further defining or refining.” Buel v. State, 104 Wis. 132 , 80 N.W. 78, 85 (1899). Second, juries in this state have comprehended the term for well over a hundred years with no additional instructions. It seems unlikely that they should abruptly lose their understanding of the concept. Third, the jury did not request a definition of reasonable doubt and there is nothing in the record to show the term was misunderstood. Were we free to conduct a harm analysis, we would have no difficulty doing so. The Court of Criminal appeals foreclos ed this possibility last year when it held that the omission of the definitional instruction on reasonable doubt, as mandated by Geesa , “defies meaningful analysis by harmless error standards.” See State v. Toney, 979 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).”

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

2. “the language of the statute on reasonable doubt needs no amplification or attempt on the part of the trial court to explain the term.”

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