Flowers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 49 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no ‘best evidence’ rule in Texas that requires that the fact of a prior conviction be proven with any document, much less any specific document. While evidence of a certified copy of a final judgment and sentence may be a preferred and convenient means, the State may prove [a prior conviction] in a number of different ways, including (1) the defendant’s admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a person who was present when the person was convicted of the specified crime and can identify the defendant as that person, or (3) documentary proof (such as a judgment) that contains sufficient information to establish both the existence of a prior conviction and the defendant’s identity as the person convicted. Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to prove a prior conviction. .. .Any type of evidence, documentary or testimonial, might suffice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Devante Shelby Castle v. State · Antonio Leonard Brown v. State

2. “Regardless of the type of evidentiary puzzle pieces the State offers to establish the existence of a prior conviction and its link to a specific defendant, the trier of fact determines'if these pieces fit together sufficiently to complete the puzzle. The trier of fact looks at the totality of the evidence admitted to determine 1) whether there was a previous conviction, and 2) whether the defendant was the person convicted. If these two elements can be found beyond a reasonable doubt, then the various pieces used to complete the puzzlé are necessarily legally sufficient to prove a prior conviction.”

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

3. “the State may prove both of these elements in a number of different ways, including (1) the defendant’s admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a person who was present when the person was convicted of the specified crime and can identify the defendant as that person, or (3) documentary proof (such a.s a judgment) that contains sufficient information to establish both the existence of a prior conviction and the defendant’s identity as the person convicted.”

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