Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 1998
20 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 Seiffert v. State · Nees v. State · Marshall v. State · Hess 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The indictments in the two causes are identical, alleging in pertinent part that appellant, “on or about the 27th day of April in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and 73 in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully sell a narcotic drug, to wit: Heroin to Troy Braswell....” In his motion to quash, appellant urged (1) the indictment did not allege an offense with sufficient particularity for him to prepare a defense and (2) to require appellant to proceed to trial under the two indictments would deny him the defense of jeopardy. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense. The thrust of his argument appears to be that the indictments were “... clearly insufficient to inform the appellant of what ‘cause’ or facts differentiated C-73-7976-J from C-73-7977J.” An indictment, to be sufficient, must give the day, month, and year of the commission of the offense_ Both indictments alleged that the offenses occurred “on or about” April 27,1973. The State is not bound by the date on or about which the offense is alleged to have been committed and a conviction may be had upon proof that the offense was committed at any time prior to the return of the indictment which is within the period of limitation. Nees v. State, 402 S.W.2d 186 , Tex.Cr.App.; Art. 21.-02(6), V.A.C.C.P. The limitation period applicable to the offense here charged is three years anterior to the presentment of the indictment. Art. 12.01(4), V.A.C. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. King v. State““Where two or more similar but separate acts constituting separate offenses are placed in evidence under an indictment or information under which a conviction of either offense can be had, and neither the state nor the court elects one particular act on which conviction is sought, a plea of former conviction or of former acquittal will be good on a subsequent prosecution based on any of the acts or offenses proved, it being uncertain for which one the conviction was had.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marquez v. State“We reject appellant’s contention that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to choose which sale related to which cause. To the contrary, we find that it was appropriate for the State to elect as to which “particular act on which conviction is sought” in each of the two causes. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. King 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.