Luken v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Plainly put, an indictment sufficient to allege an offense, but containing no allegation of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, suffers no “defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance” on that account. It would be unconscionable to require an accused to complain that the State has failed by its pleadings to present an issue on some fact beyond what is necessary to “eharg[e] a person with the commission of an offense,” Article V, § 12, supra, 2 which additional fact may further adversely impact his own liberty interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks v. State · Steadman v. State

2. “If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other post-conviction proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goins v. State · Shaw v. State

3. ““The notice held necessary in Patterson is not simply that which fleshes out an indictment which is minimally adequate to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court, but otherwise insufficient to support a plea in bar, Article 21.04, V.A.C. C.P., or to inform the accused of precisely what he is charged with so that he may prepare his defense, see Articles 21.02(7) and 21.11, V.A.C.C.P. At issue in Patterson , rather, is that notice mandated by due course of law sufficient to alert the accused in the first instance ‘that a particular finding of fact, having an incrementally greater impact upon his liberty than a bare conviction, may even be made.’ 740 S.W.2d at 774 . While concluding that, unlike enhancement counts, an allegation of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon need not appear in the indictment, we expressly held ‘that the State must plead it.’ ” Luken, 780 S.W.2d at 266 , quoting Patterson, 740 S.W.2d at 776 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State of Texas