Mulanax v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... a deadly weapon ... was used or exhibited during the commission of a felony offense or during immediate flight therefrom, and that the defendant used or exhibited the deadly weapon or was a party to the offense and knew that a deadly weapon would be used or exhibited.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broden v. State · Tate v. State

2. “The specificity requirement also applies to the recent amendment of Article 42.12 § 3g(a)(2). In other words, since a party may now receive an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon when he knew that a deadly weapon would be used or exhibited, the affirmative finding must state that the appellant knew that a deadly weapon would be used or exhibited. See Pritchett, 874 S.W.2d at 173 . A finding that a deadly weapon was used is not proper and should be deleted. Flores, 690 S.W.2d at 288 . Without the deletion, the judgment implies that the appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon. See Travelstead, 693 S.W.2d at 402 . In order for an affirmative finding to stand on the law of parties, there must have been a specific finding that appellant knew a deadly weapon would be used or exhibited.”

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