119 Md. App. 547 - Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 134 Md. App. 152 - Marr v. State (2000), 125 Md. App. 77 - Herd v. State (1999)
3 federal appellate · 36 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Williams v. United States · Johnson v. State · MacK 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[ Warfield ] recognized that there are situations when a person intentionally enters the property of another, based on a reasonable belief that it is permissible to do so. In that circumstance, one is not necessarily criminally culpable, notwithstanding the actual intent to enter. "In order to be guilty of criminal trespass, even when one intends to enter the property of another, the Warfield Court made clear that one must be `aware of the fact that he is making an unwarranted intrusion.' * * * "Consequently, a defendant is not culpable if his `belief is reasonable, that is, a belief [that] is not reckless or negligent....' * * * "In the case subjudice, the issue of implied permission was clearly generated by the defense's evidence. The defense contended that appellant reasonably believed he had permission to enter McDougald's residence."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In view of the court’s instructions, however, the jury was never called upon to judge the credibility of appellant or resolve the conflicting versions of events. Instead, based on the court’s instructions, the jury had little choice but to convict; the court told the jury that, in order to convict appellant, the State only had to prove that there was a breaking, followed, by an entry into McDougald’s dwelling, and that it was appellant who committed the breaking and entering. These facts were never in dispute, however. Yet the court refused to advise the jury that it could not convict appellant unless he entered McDougald’s dwelling “with an awareness that it was unwarranted — lacking authority, license, privilege, invitation, or legality.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, although the pattern instruction was correct, it was not adequate, because it did not encompass the valid defense asserted by appellant. When the evidence generates an issue that is not covered by a pattern instruction, we must count on the court to incoiporate relevant and valid legal principles gleaned from the case law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.