State v. Langdon’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. “As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or between August 1, 2000 and August 31, 2000, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant had sexual intercourse with S.N., and Second, that defendant did so without the consent of S.N., and Third that defendant knew that he did not have the consent of S.N., then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of sexual assault. As used in this instruction consent or lack of consent may be expressed or implied. Assent does not constitute consent if (a) It is given by a person who lacks the mental capacity to authorize the conduct charged to constitute the offense and such mental incapacity is manifest or known to the actor; or (b) It is given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication, is manifestly unable or known by the actor to be unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct charged to constitute the offense; or (c) It is induced by force, duress, or deception. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. 7”

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

2. “What may be sufficiently recent will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the type of property stolen, how easy it is to sell, and how likely it is to be sold innocently. See, e.g., [State v.] Sours, 633 S.W.2d [255] at 258-59 [ (Mo.App.1982) ] (possession of pistol stolen 8 days earlier, later sold for half its value and other suspicious comments sufficient to meet standard); State v. Hedrick, 499 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.App. W.D.1973) (19 hours sufficiently recent); and State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572 , 178 S.W.2d 449, 453 (Mo.1944) (possession of adding machine two months after larceny was not too remote to permit inference where adding machines are not readily marketable and defendant was not in business of possessing them).”

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

3. “if for the purpose of depriving the owner of a lawful interest therein, he or she receives, retains or disposes of property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has been stolen.”

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