Milligan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We do not decide whether the implicit pleading requirements of [TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 21.24] allow the State to join nonproperty offenses through separate indictments. However, even if the State could successfully join nonproperty offenses for a single trial through separate indictments, it would still face at least two remaining procedural hurdles that might prevent it from obtaining more than one conviction in a single trial. First, a defendant might still have a constitutional right to request severance of the offenses into separate trials.... Second, even in the absence of an objection, it would seem that a trial court only has authority to accept a single general verdict from the jury in a trial for nonproperty offenses. [TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.07; Ex parte Siller, supra.] We believe that, following our abandonment of the carving doctrine, the State effectively will have to obtain multiple convictions for nonproperty offenses through multiple trials until the Legislature alters pleading and verdict restrictions.”

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