Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The victim's legal name was provided to appellant in compliance with his motion seeking disclosure of the State's witnesses. Moreover, appellant, in his pre-trial motions, specifically referred to the victim by legal name. Pursuant to one such motion, the trial judge held a hearing at which time the victim testified to establish his competency to testify. Finally, the State filed notice of its intent to offer the outcry testimony of the victim to his mother. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.072. Appellant objected and a pre-trial hearing was held. At the hearing all parties referred to the victim and his mother by their legal names. Clearly, any variance between the indictment and the proof offered at trial did not operate to the appellant's surprise or prejudice his rights. Plessinger, 536 S.W.2d at 381 . In other words, the variance was not material. (emphasis added)”

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

2. “However, not every variance between the evidence at trial and the indictment is fatal. In Plessinger v. State, 536 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), we explained: "The object of the doctrine of variance between allegations of an indictment is to avoid surprise, and for such variance to be material it must be such as to mislead the party to his prejudice." Id., 536 S.W.2d at 381 (citations omitted). In other words, only a material variance is fatal.”

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

3. “As a general rule a variance between the indictment and the evidence at trial is fatal to a conviction. Corley v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 207 , 254 S.W.2d 394 (1953). This is because Due Process guarantees the defendant notice of the charges against him. Ward v. State, 829 S.W.2d 787, 794 (Tex. Cr.App.1992). Due Process is violated when an indictment alleges one offense but the State proves another. Id.”

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