Eads v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The charge clearly states that `If there is any Special Issue on which the vote of the jurors is not unanimously `Yes' or not at least ten (10) in favor of an answer of `No,' then there shall be no answer for that Special Issue and the foreman should not sign his name to any answer form for that Special Issue.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Sorola v. State · Beltran v. State

2. ““ ‘A verdict must be certain, consistent and definite. It may not be conditional, qualified, speculative, inconclusive, or ambiguous.’ 57 Tex.Jr.2d, Trial, Sec. 415, pp. 49-50. Villarreal v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 616 , 317 S.W.2d 531 (1958), and cases there cited. * * * It is not only within the power, but it is the duty of the trial judge to reject an informal or insufficient verdict, call to the attention of the jury the defect, informality or insufficiency, and either have the same corrected with their consent, or retire them again to consider of their verdict. Article 37.10, V.A.C.C.P., note # 1 and cases there cited. And such procedure is particularly necessary where the defect or insufficiency in the verdict relates to the assessment of punishment in a criminal case. Belton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 436 , 286 S.W.2d 432 (1956); Franklin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 79 , 331 S.W.2d 751 (1960); Fernandez v. State, 382 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1964). * * * While a trial court may correct an informal or contradictory verdict with the jury’s consent, the court cannot substitute its judgment for the jury’s verdict. Howell v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 614 , 47 S.W.2d 844 (1932); Moore v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 307 , 227 S.W.2d 219 (1950); Smith v. State, 479 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). And a trial court cannot supply a finding that the jury has not made in its verdict. Hatfield v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 362 , 276 S.W.2d 829 (1955).” (Emphasis supplied.)”

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

3. ““It has been said under § 3(c) that where the jury has been selected to assess punishment and fails to agree on a penalty a mistrial should be declared as to the entire trial. Bullard v. State, 548 S.W.2d 13, 18 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Galloway v. State, 420 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Longs v. State, 429 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). And if on appeal it is determined that reversible error occurred at the penalty stage of the trial before a jury, this court is without authority to direct a new trial or penalty hearing before a different jury on the issue of punishment alone. Bullard v. State, supra, and cases there cited. See also Ellison v. State, supra.” 5”

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