12 Md. App. 371 - Waldrop v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Unquestionably, the Waldrop Court reviewed the law in embezzlement cases recognizing the four different criteria announced in Martel , and also recognizing the revisions stated in Peddersen , and stated that in Peddersen the Court had concluded that since the essential element in embezzlement was intent, the venue could be laid in any county in which: (1) the money or property was received with intent to embezzle, or (2) in the county in which the money or property was possessed and the intent to embezzle was formed, regardless of the fact that actual conversion may have taken place in another county or state. In the instant case, it is clear that the defendant attended the offices of Mr. Gott in Anne Arundel County with a sum of money with which to effect a settlement on behalf of Mr. Rogers. He was at that time acting for and in behalf of Mr. Rogers. While it may be true that he received some funds belonging to Rogers by mail from Mr. Gott, and thereafter deposited that sum in an account in the District of Columbia, it is the view of this Court that at the time the defendant appeared with the money in Anne Arundel County he had then formed or continued to retain a criminal intent to embezzle funds of his principal. In the view of this Court there is ample evidence to support an inference that such an intent existed in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

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

2. ““Guilt in embezzlement cases is almost always a matter of inference, Couture v. State, 7 Md. App. 269 , 255 A. 2d 84 , and if the rational inferences prove the crime was committed in Maryland, there is no error in trying appellant in Maryland.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Md. App. 123 - Urciolo v. State