Burrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Gollihar v. State (2001)
77 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. State · Bustillos v. State · Flores v. State · Delorme v. State · Craig v. State
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is, however a well recognized exception to the general rule discussed above, and that is where the unnecessary matter is descriptive of that which is legally essential to charge a crime it must be proven as alleged, even though needlessly stated. See 13 Texas Law Review 489 (note); 1 Branch's Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 518, pp. 491-498, and cases there cited. It is well established that where a person, place or thing necessary to be mentioned in the indictment is described with unnecessary particularity, all circumstances of description must be proven, Smith v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 511 , 298 S.W. 286 (1927), and cannot be rejected as surplus age, for they are thus made essential to the identity. Maples v. State, 124 Tex. Cr.R. 478, 63 S.W.2d 855 (1933). Thus, if the pleader makes unnecessary allegations descriptive of the identity of the offense charged, it is incumbent upon the State to establish such allegations by evidence. McClure v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 650 , 296 S.W.2d 263 (1956)."”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. State · Horne v. State““Any matter of form in an indictment or information may be amended at any time before an announcement of ready for trial upon the merits by both parties, but not afterward. No matter of substance can be amended.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. State · Howard v. State““In the early case of Calvin v. Texas, 25 Tex. 789 (1860), where an allegation of ownership was stricken by agreement between the district attorney and defense counsel the court noted the amendment involved substance and that neither counsel nor the district attorney and the prisoner, nor the trial court could materially alter the indictment in light of the statute (a forerunner of Article 28.10, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. containing the same wording). See also Schenk v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 235 , 174 S.W. 357 (1915). “Jeters v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 379 , 82 S.W.2d 150 (1935), also made clear that an amendment cannot be made even if the parties consent. Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 264 , 75 S.W.2d 886 (1934); noted that an indictment cannot be legally amended as to substance, .... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.