Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “4 Although it was not necessary to address the issue of pleading and negating exceptions in charging instruments, we feel that it is necessary to clarify portions of the court of appeals’ opinion for the benefit of the lower courts.... Under the Texas Penal Code, the charging instrument must negate the existence of an exception in the charging instrument. [TexPenal Code Ann.] § 2.02(b). However, § 2.02(b) was enacted prior to this Court’s decision in Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.CrimApp.1990). The negation of any exception to the offense is an element of the offense. TexPenal Code § 1.07(13)(D). In Studer , this Court held that the 1985 amendments to the Texas Constitution eliminated the necessity of pleading each and every element of an offense in the charging instrument in order to confer jurisdiction in the court. Studer, 799 S.W.2d at 272 . Consequently, the argument can he made that it is no longer necessary to negate each and every exception to an offense in the charging instrument, as required under § 2.02(b). However, we express no opinion on this issue, as it was not before us in this case.”

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