Denham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Once a bona fide stop or arrest has been made for a traffic offense, the police can make an additional arrest for any other offense unexpectedly discovered during the course of the investigation. If, while questioning a motorist regarding the operation of his vehicle, an officer sees evidence of a criminal violation in open view, or in some other manner acquires probable cause on a more serious charge, he may arrest for that offense and incident thereto conduct an additional search for physical evidence. * * * Under these circumstances, neither the arrest nor the search is tied to the traffic charge, but rather to the violation later discovered. * * * This is true even if no specific statement of fact of the second arrest is made * * * ” See also Corbitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 184 ; Denham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 814 ; Wimberly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 857 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elliott v. State · Wimberly v. State

2. ““Article 37.07, (V.A.C.C.P.) supra, puts every accused on notice that the State is entitled to show his prior criminal record, if any. Such statute does not limit or restrict in any way the method of showing such prior criminal record. One of the customary means of doing so, which has long been approved by this Court, has been by the use of certified copies of the prison records. Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 922 ; Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 742 ; Broussard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 143 . “Therefore, when the trial judge, as in the case at bar, finds after an inquiry into the matter that the appellant was not unfairly surprised, then we perceive no violation of Section 3 of Article 3731a, supra.””

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

3. ““Such writing shall be admissible only if the party offering it has delivered a copy thereof, or so much of it as may relate to the controversy, to the adverse party a reasonable time before trial, unless in the opinion of the trial court the adverse party has' not been unfairly surprised by the failure to deliver such copy.””

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