Kellar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While the statute does not require the level of specificity in an indictment urged by the appellant, a defendant does have a constitutional right to sufficient notice so as to enable him to prepare a defense. However, this due process requirement may be satisfied by means other than the language in the charging instrument. When a motion to quash is overruled, a defendant suffers no harm unless he did not, in fact, receive notice of the State’s theory against which he would have to defend. The record in this ease clearly shows that the appellant had actual notice of the specific instances of theft upon which the State was basing its allegations. In a series of pretrial hearings, the prosecutor agreed to provide the defense with information related to the individual transactions that were aggregated in the indictment. Defense counsel had access to four binders containing documentation of 149 transactions showing instances of theft by the appellant. Furthermore, the State filed a document entitled “State’s Answer to Pretrial Rulings and Notice of Extraneous Conduct,” which included an itemized list of transactions upon which the State intended to rely. The list showed the date, check number, and amount of each transaction and a specific range of dates during which the transactions occurred. The State later amended its filing to provide notice of additional transactions that it intended to use in its case-in-chief, itemizing them in the same way. Finally, the State filed notice t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanchez v. State

2. “[i]n a case of aggregated theft under 31.09, the indictment must allege the ‘continuing course of conduct’ element, but there is no pleading i*equirement that it include the specific acts of theft that are aggregated. Here, the indictment, by its language ‘pursuant to one scheme and continuing course of conduct,’ satisfied the requirements of section 31.09.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mungin v. State

3. “When amounts are obtained in violation of this chapter pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kevin Lavelle Kent v. State