11 Md. App. 443 - Downes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2004
2 district · 14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · Wright v. State · 8 Md. App. 312 - Jennings v. State · Ridley v. State · 9 Md. App. 80 - Dorsey v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The language of Section 490 indicates that it is an essential element of the statutory crime that the accused have the intent to commit a crime. * * * [The] language indicates that it is the contemplated commission of the specified crimes which is referred to in the statute. * * * We believe that the normal usage of this language implies the mental processes preliminary to the actual doing of or completion (emphasis added) of a particular act. * * * the beneficial and useful purpose of this important statutory provision * * * is to give the enforcement officers a tool to apprehend and suppress more aggravated criminal conduct prior to its actual commission. «* * * The taking of the chattels by Cross-land and their asportation were clearly established by the evidence. In other words, the substantive crime had in fact been committed by Crossland and under these unusual circumstances, the necessary intent ‘to enter’ or ‘to steal’ no longer existed; the substantive crime was a fait accompli.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) being apprehended: (a) possessed of implements at places and under circumstances from which may be presumed an intent feloniously to break and enter a dwelling house or storehouse; or (b) possessed of offensive weapons at places and under circumstances from which may be presumed an intent feloniously to assault any person; or (2) being found in or upon any dwelling house or storehouse, or in any enclosed yard or garden or area belonging to any house, with an intent to steal any goods or chattels.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hall v. State“[F]rom 1809 to date [it] has had only one change of substance and that was by ch. 467, Acts 1878, which provided that the intent may be presumed from the place and circumstance of the apprehension.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.