MacK v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section (a) codifies into Kentucky law the test set forth in Blockburger v. United States [ 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ] for determining if a person may be convicted for more than one offense as a result of a single course of conduct, i.e., the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. In other words, if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test. Accordingly, in applying the Blockburger test, we must focus[] on the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial. But before applying the Blockburger test to a multi-purpose criminal statute, the court must construct from the alternative elements within the statute the particular formulation that applies to the case at hand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fields v. Commonwealth

2. “A defendant may be convicted of an offense that is ; ;]' Jed in any offense with which ho ;: formally charged. An offense is so included when: (a)It is established by proof of the same or less than all the i. ,cts required to establish the eommis ion of the offense charged; or (b) It consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein; or (c) It differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission; or (d) It differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest suffices to establish its commission.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fields v. Commonwealth

3. “the fair import of the term “in the course of committing theft” ... include[s] the time, place and circumstances surrounding a theft or attempted theft. This encompasses the escape stage. We believe the fair import of the meaning of “escape stage” “to be all steps or events in the process of escape which would fall within the active or continuous pursuit of the criminal actor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bumphis v. Commonwealth