State v. Boccelli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 71 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * While we are sympathetic to the problems of enforcement agencies in controlling the narcotics traffic, and their use of informers to that end, we cannot condone the action of one acting for the government in supplying the very narcotics that gave rise to the alleged offense. We know of no conviction for sale of narcotics that has been sustained when the narcotics sold were supplied by an agent of the government. This is more than mere inducement. In reality the government is supplying the sine qua non of the offense. * * * * * * “We believe the record as a whole tends to show that defendant’s only sale was of narcotics supplied to him by an informer in the employ of the government. This constitutes a valid defense of entrapment and the defendant should have been discharged.” People v. Strong, 21 Ill.2d 320, 326 , 172 N.E.2d 765, 768 (1961).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gessler · State v. Fox

2. “"This court has held that in order to be a valid claim of entrapment, there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient, State v. Duplain, 102 Ariz. 100 , 425 P.2d 570 . The criminal conduct must be the product of the creative activity of [the] law enforcement officials. State v. Rabon, 100 Ariz. 344 , 414 P.2d 726 .” State v. Boccelli, 105 Ariz. 495, 497 , 467 P.2d 740, 742 (1970).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin · State v. Fassler

3. ““But were it possible for reasonable men to differ with our conclusion that the intent to sell was implanted in appellant’s mind by the question as to how much he, appellant, wanted for the marijuana, the evidence is uncontradicted that the State’s agents placed in commerce the narcotic, the trafficking in which is absolutely forbidden by the legislative act.” State v. Boccelli, supra, 105 Ariz. at 497 , 467 P.2d at 742 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rocha-Rocha · State v. Gessler