Boutte 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. “The language and wording of Article 28.10(b) ... is clear and unambiguous and if the defendant, after trial on the merits has commenced, interposes a timely objection to the State’s proposed amendment, be it to form or substance, such amendment is absolutely prohibited. It appears the court of appeals was of the opinion that in regard to [sjection (b) after a trial amendment, a “substantial rights” analysis was to be performed pursuant to [sjection (c) which prohibits the State from amending the indictment if such amendment transformed the allegations to additional or different offenses or prejudiced the substantial rights of the defendant. We do not find such reasoning persuasive. Article 28.10(c) prohibits the State from amending, the indictment over a defense objection if such amendment results in an additional or different offense or if it adversely prejudices the substantial rights of the defendant. Section (c) makes no mention as to whether it applies to [selections (a) and (b) or only to one .of the preceding sections. We conclude that an analysis pursuant to [s]ection(c) could only be logically applied to an indictment amendment which falls under the purview of Section (a).... At first blush one might suspect that the provisions of [sjection (c) are applicable to both [sjeetions (a) and (b) because of the structure of Article 28.10. However, as previously stated, a defendant under the clear language of [selection (b) has an absolute veto power over proposed amendments”

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

2. “An indictment or information may not be amended over the defendant’s objection as to form or substance if the amended indictment or information charges the defendant with an additional or different offense or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.”

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