Talancon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Specifically, upon reviewing the statutory scheme devised by our legislature, we believe that it sought to protect against two separate societal interests when it enacted the felony murder statute and the robbery statute. In essence, the robbery statute is intended to protect against robbery only, while the felony murder statute seeks to protect against homicides. In light of this intent to protect against two separate evils, we must conclude that the legislature intended two separate punishments when a defendant violates both statutes.”

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

2. “of state courts that analyzed the constitutional issue on the basis of the intent of the state legislature had upheld separate punishments for felony murder and the underlying felony. Todd, supra at 679 . [11] In Greco , the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the distinct interests protected by the respective statutes at issue: An obvious purpose of the felony murder statute, or any murder statute, is to protect human life. In contrast,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Curvan

3. “[A] court should normally presume that a legislature did not intend multiple punishments for the same offense absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary.”

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