Pena v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “• the state constitution should be interpreted as providing broader protection than its federal counterpart only if such an interpretation has firm support in state history or policy; thus, the state constitution should be interpreted as providing rights not found in the federal constitution only when unique aspects of state history, jurisprudence, or law support that separate interpretation; • under the due course of law provision of the state constitution, the State has a duty to preserve material evidence which has apparent exculpatory value, encompassing both exculpatory evidence and evidence that is potentially useful to the defense; • a criminal defendant has a right to inspect evidence indispensable to the State’s case because that evidence is necessarily material to the defense of the accused; • in a marihuana case, the alleged marihuana is necessarily indispensable to the State’s case, and the defendant has a right to inspect that evidence; consequently the State has duty to preserve plant material alleged to be marihuana, in prosecution for possession; • there are generally three recognized remedies for the loss or destruction of evidence: (1) dismissal; (2) exclusion of related evidence; or (3) an adverse inference instruction; • an adverse inference instruction was an appropriate remedy for State’s destruction of plant material alleged to be marihuana and lab file documenting its testing and subsequent destruction, in prosecution for possession of marihuana.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pena v. State · Hennings v. State

2. “(1) the degree of negligence involved, (2) the significance of the destroyed evidence considered in light of the proba-five value and reliability of secondary evidence that remains available, and (3)the sufficiency of the other evidence used at trial to support the conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vasquez · Pena v. State

3. “(1) whether the Due Course of Law Clause of article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution provides a greater level of protection with regard to lost or destroyed evidence than does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) whether the issue identified in (1) has been preserved for appellate review.”

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