Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We therefore hold that the State was not permitted to amend the instant indictment on the date of trial prior to trial on the merits commencing. Therefore, in light of our interpretation of Article 28.-10, we conclude that the trial court, when faced with the State’s motion to amend, should have denied the motion. Since the trial court did not, error was committed. We conclude that in order to give effect to the full meaning and intent of Article 28.10, which is written with clarity and is not ambiguous, the error complained of in the instant case, i.e., that the State should not be permitted to amend a charging instrument on the day of trial prior to commencing trial on the merits over defendant’s objection, should not be subjected to a harm analysis.”

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

2. “[N]o breach of Article 28.10 should be tolerated in the trial court, regardless of its probable effect on the outcome of trial, and ... no speculation about the impact of such an error under Rule 81(b)(2) should be attempted on appeal.”

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

3. “A matter of form or substance in an indictment or information may also be amended after the trial on the merits commences if the defendant does not object.” (Emphasis added.) 4 . Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2) states:”

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