Broadway v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Art. 37.07, subd. 2, providing for the alternate procedure in determining guilt or innocence and punishment in a felony case less than capital or in a capital case where the state has made it known that it would not seek the death penalty, reads, in part, as follows: “ ‘Regardless of whether the punishment be assessed by the judge or the jury, evidence may be offered by the State and the defendant as to the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character.’ “We hold that in the instant case the state was properly permitted to offer testimony as to appellant’s bad reputation up to and including the date of trial. “Under the provisions of Art. 37.07, the jury was authorized to consider appellant’s general reputation in fixing the punishment. “The cases cited by appellant which were decided under the 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that — subj ect to certain exceptions — the state could only inquire into the accused’s reputation up to the time of the commission of the offense, are not controlling and applicable to a separate trial on the question of punishment, under Art. 37.07-2 of the 1965 Code. Our conclusion is not in conflict with the court’s holding in The City of Houston v. Watson, 376 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. ref., n. r. e.), cited by appellant, that testimony in a personal-injury civil suit as to the credibility and delinquency of a minor child was inadmissible as a matter of law, under Sec. 13 of Art. 2338-1, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. State · Smith v. State