Garcia v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled that the 'on or about’ language of an indictment allows the State to prove a date other than the one alleged in the indictment as long as the date is anterior to the presentment of the indictment and within the statutory limitation period.”). . We note that the State concedes that it provided no evidence of the date of appellant's indictment. However, appellant has not raised this complaint on appeal. . The record indicates that up until the 90-day time period ending in August 2011 appellant’s behavior complied with the statute. .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. William David Kelley v. State · Ketchum v. State

2. ““The certainty required in an indictment is such as will enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Parker v. State · Sanchez v. State

3. “First, time is not a material element of an offense (at least, not usually). Second, the primary purpose of specifying a date in the indictment is not to notify the accused of the date of the offense but rather to show that the prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations. Third, it may be impossible for the State to know precisely, or even approximately, when the charged offense occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. State