Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Studer v. State (1990), Bynum v. State (1989)
109 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Gideon v. Wainwright · Burks v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Almanza 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An accused’s right to notice of the accusation against him is premised upon constitutional principles, both federal and state. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation....” Article I, Sec. 20 of the Texas Constitution states in part: “(In all criminal prosecutions the accused) shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.” There are also pertinent Code of Criminal Procedure provisions. See Articles 21.02(7), 21.03, 21.04, 21.11 and 21.12, V.A.C.C.P. The defendant is thus entitled to notice of the acts or omissions he is alleged to have committed. When considering a motion to quash, it is insufficient to say the accused knew with what offense he was charged; rather the question presented is whether the face of the instrument sets forth in plain and intelligible language sufficient information to enable the accused to prepare his defense. The motion to quash should be granted where the language in the charging instrument concerning the defendant’s conduct is so vague or indefinite as to deny the defendant effective notice of the acts he allegedly committed. While all essential elements of an offense must be alleged in the indictment, an indictment drafted in the language of the statute creating and defining an offense is ordinarily sufficient. It is a r”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Marable v. State · State v. Ross“[A constructive transfer] only requires that when the State alleges constructive transfer to an alleged ultimate recipient, that the accused must have contemplated that his initial transfer would not be the final transaction in the chain of distribution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. State · Sims v. State“‘Delivery’ means the constructive transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship. Constructive transfer is the transfer of a controlled substance either belonging to an individual or under his direct or indirect control by some other person at the instance or direction of the individual accused of such constructive transfer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.