Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) to protect the accused from the introduction of extraneous offenses, (2) to minimize the risk that the jury might choose to convict, not because one or more crimes were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but because all of them together convinced the jury the defendant was guilty, (3) to ensure unanimous verdicts, that is, all of the jurors agreeing that one specific incident, which constituted the offense charged in the indictment, occurred, and (4) to give the defendant notice of the particular offense the State intends to rely upon for prosecution and afford the defendant an opportunity to defend. 7”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pedersen v. State · Cosio v. State

2. “Consideration of these incidents without an election jeopardizes the defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution, even though the extraneous incidents may be admissible for other purposes under Article 38.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the Texas Constitution is violated, as it was in the case before us, the proper analysis is provided by Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a). In addition to protecting the unanimity of the jury verdict, an election is also required in order to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to defend. The deprivation of notice also implicates of fundamental constitutional principles, viz: due process and due course of law.”

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

3. “You are further instructed that if there is any evidence before you in this case regarding the defendant’s committing other crimes, wrongs, or acts against the child who is the complainant of the alleged offense in the indictment in this case, you cannot consider such evidence for any purpose unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other crimes, wrongs, or acts, against the child, if any, and even then you may only consider the same in determining its bearing on relevant matters, including (1) the state of mind of the defendant and the child; and (2) the previous and subsequent relationship between the defendant and the child for no other purpose.”

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