127 Md. App. 678 - Bates & Beharry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In order to convict the defendants of first degree felony murder, the State must prove that the defendant or another participating in the crime with the defendant committed the murder in question, and that, in fact, the defendant, or another participating in the crime with the defendant, killed the victim in question, Clayton Culbreth, and that the act resulting in the death of Clayton Culbreth occurred during the commission or attempted commission of the robbery with which the defendants have been charged. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendants intended to kill the victim.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leonard-Bey v. Conroy · Leonard-Bey v. Conroy

2. “[T]he court never instructed the jury that in order to find Beharry guilty of felony murder, it had to find him guilty of armed robbery or attempted armed robbeiy. The court’s instruction on felony murder suggested that Beharry could be found guilty if the victim was killed during an attempted robbeiy by Bates, so long as Beharry participated with Bates in the commission of some unspecified crime. On this instruction, the jury could have found Beharry guilty of felony murder even if it believed that he did not participate in the attempted armed robbery.... In light of the inconsistent verdicts, we have no doubt that the jury was affirmatively misled by the court’s instructions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 Md. App. 157 - Minger v. State · 176 Md. App. 365 - Tate v. State

3. “The State suggests that defense counsel’s failure to object to the court’s instructions or to request an instruction on consistent verdicts precludes Beharry from complaining on appeal about the inconsistent verdicts. See Md. Rule 4-325(e). We do not agree. As we explained in Jenkins v. State, 59 Md.App. 612, 620-21 , 477 A.2d 791 (1984), modified on other grounds, 307 Md. 501 , 515 A.2d 465 (1986) (regarding whether guilty verdicts of assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to maim were inconsistent): Ordinarily, a defendant’s failure to make a timely objection to the court’s instructions, or to its omission to give an instruction, precludes appellate review of any error relating to the instructions.... Where the error arises from the rendition of inconsistent verdicts, however, although it could have been avoided by appropriate instruction, it extends beyond the matter of instructions. * ❖ ❖”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 152 Md. App. 488 - Hudson v. State