Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A party may not impeach his own witness unless the witness testifies to facts injurious to that party’s case and the party demonstrates that he was surprised by such testmony. Banks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 510 S.W.2d 592 ; Zanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 708 ; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 311 ; Wall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 417 S.W.2d 59 . “To demonstrate surprise, the prosecutor must show prior conversations with the witness or prior statements, outside the presence of the jury. Norwood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 776 ; Perry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 660 ; Thrash v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 338 S.W.2d 447 ; Pelton v. State, 167 Tex. Cr.R. 649, 322 S.W.2d 529 . The reason for the requirement of surprise is to prevent a party from calling a witness who the party knows will testify adversely, and then, under the guise of impeachment, adduce the testimony which the party would have hoped to elicit from the adverse witness. Cherb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 273 .””

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