Kraft v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[S]o long as it may be concluded that particular evidence the accused maintains should have been suppressed pursuant to a motion raising Fourth or Fifth Amendment violations would in any measure inculpate the accused, that evidence has been “used” against him in securing his misdemeanor conviction, and hence, the appellate court should entertain the merits of his appeal.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holmes v. State · McKenna v. State

2. “appellant's statement as part or all of its evidence going to establish a full-blown trial. This ruling undoubtedly contributed in some measure to the State's leverage in the plea bargaining process; the more relevant evidence appellant knows could be marshalled against him, the more preferable would appear his option to relinquish constitutional rights of trial and confrontation in exchange for a favorable punishment recommendation. Thus we may presume that at least to some extent the State has”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woodberry v. State · Holmes v. State

3. “does not apply to an appeal from a misdemeanor guilty plea that challenges the ruling on- ... a pretrial motion.” 582 S.W.2d at 444 . A contrary holding, we observed, would have "thwarted” one of the legislative purposes underlying Article 44.02, [see infra, p. 665] viz: to encourage guilty pleas in cases where the only contested issue is some matter such as the lawfulness of a search or voluntariness of a confession, see Ferguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), in that application of the rule in Brown, supra, would defeat the necessity for an appellate determination of such issues. Isam, at 443. Thus, much as we have lately held that a judicial confession given in support of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a felony prosecution will not, standing alone, obviate substantive treatment of the merits of a pre-trial motion to suppress, Morgan v. State, 688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), neither will such a plea in a misdemeanor prosecution by itself defeat the defendant's appeal merely because it has been held for other purposes to admit every element of the offense charged. Kraft v. State, 762 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). . In addition to Haynes, supra, the Supreme Court adverted to the conditional plea in McMann . "[T]he plea is also a waiver of trial — and unless the applicable law otherwise provides, [note 11] a waiver of the right to contest the admissibility of any evidence the State might have offered against the defendant.”

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