Wesson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "A statute may be found unconstitutional 'as applied' to a specific set of facts or 'on its face.' See Scott v. State , 322 S.W.3d 662 , 665 n. 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ; Bynum v. State , 767 S.W.2d 769 , 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Generally, a defendant must show that a statute is unconstitutional 'as applied' to the conduct for which he was charged. See id . at 774 . A claim that a statute is unconstitutional 'as applied' is a claim that the statute operates unconstitutionally with respect to the claimant because of his particular circumstances. Gillenwaters v. State , 205 S.W.3d 534 , 536 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Solomon · 272 So. 3d 732 - Pruitt v. State

2. ““It is well settled that a person challenging the constitutionality of a statute as applied to him ‘bears the burden of proving that [the statute] is unconstitutional as applied to his conduct.’ Powell v. State, 72 So.3d 1268, 1278 (Ala.Crim. App.2011). The Texas Court of Appeals has explained: “ ‘A statute may be found unconstitutional “as applied” to a specific set of facts or “on its face.” See Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 , 665 n. 1 (Tex. Crim.App.2010); Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Generally, a defendant must show that a statute is unconstitutional “as applied” to the conduct for which he was charged. See id. at 774 . A claim that a statute is unconstitutional “as applied” is a claim that the statute operates unconstitutionally with respect to the claimant because of his particular circumstances. Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534 , 536 n. 3 (Tex.Crim. App.2006).’ “State v. Johnson, 425 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex.App.2014). Accordingly, this Court has held that, without evidence or some factual basis in the record, it cannot hold that an appellant has met his burden to establish that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. State v. Woodruff, 460 So.2d 325, 330 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). “Wesson pleaded guilty to violating § 13A-6-65(a)(3), which provides: ‘A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if ... [h]e or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-”

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