14 Cal. 3d 122 - In Re Earley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

141 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant is . . . accused in the information of having committed the crime of kidnapping to commit robbery, a violation of section 209(b) of the Penal Code. “Every person who, with the specific intent to commit robbery, kidnaps any individual, is guilty of the crime of kidnapping to commit robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 209(b). “The specific intent to commit robbery must be present when the kidnapping commences. Robbery is the taking of personal property in the possession of another, against the will and from the person or immediate presence of that person, accomplished by means of force or fear, and with the specific intent permanently to deprive such person of such property. “Kidnapping is the unlawful compulsion of another person to move without that person’s consent and because of a reasonable apprehension of harm[ 4 ] where such movement is not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery and where such movement substantially increases the risk of significant physical injuries to such person over and above those to which such person is normally exposed in the commission of the crime of robbery itself. “In order to prove such crime, each of the following elements must be proved, and there’s five elements: No. 1, a person was unlawfully compelled to move because of a reasonable apprehension of harm; 2, the movement of such person was caused with the specific intent to rob that person, and the person causing such movement had such specific intent to rob”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Gonzales

2. “The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim's foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker's enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased. [Citations.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Cal. 4th 225 - People v. Martinez

3. “a defendant is entitled to habeas corpus if there is no material dispute as to the facts relating to his conviction and if it appears that the statute under which he was convicted did not prohibit his conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Cal. 5th 1216 - In re Martinez