State v. Zuniga’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. “An indictment shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged, and enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meza v. State · State v. Ross

2. “[O]ur notice jurisprudence requires appellate courts to engage in a two-step analysis when analyzing whether a charging instrument provides adequate notice. First, the reviewing court must identify the elements of the offense. Next, it must consider whether the statutory language is sufficiently descriptive of the charged offense.”

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

3. “[a] statute which uses an undefined term of indeterminate or variable meaning requires more specific pleading in order to notify the defendant of the nature of the charges against him.”

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