140 Md. App. 479 - Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 36F (b) defines a “handgun” as “any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.” In Howell v. State, 278 Md. 389, 396 , 364 A.2d 797 (1976), the Court of Appeals held that for a weapon to meet the definition of a handgun under article 27 §§ 36B (b) and 36F (b), “it must be a firearm or it must be readily convertible into a firearm,” that is, “a gun which could be explosive of projectiles.” (Emphasis added, internal quotations omitted.) In Wright v. State, 70 Md.App. 616 , 522 A.2d 401 (1987), we explained that there are two aspects to this definition. First, it excludes weapons not designed or constructed to fire missiles by gaseous explosion, and incapable of doing so because of their design and construction. Second, it requires even a weapon designed and constructed as a firearm to be capable of actually discharging a missile. Id. at 620 , 522 A.2d 401 ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 Md. App. 90 - Moore v. State

2. “The weapon used in this case (unlike the tear gas gun in Howell) had been designed, manufactured and presumably sold as a firearm. The infliction of death or serious bodily harm was its raison d’etre. The only factor detracting in any degree from its ability to perform that lethal function was a minor mechanical defect correctable in about a minute by the use of simple tools.... ... We do not think the legislature, in its concern for the protection of citizens against handguns used in crimes, intended a weapon to be excluded from the handgun category because of nice calculations of percentages or the relative strengths of potential users.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 Md. App. 90 - Moore v. State

3. “In York , the weapon in question was damaged. In deciding whether it was readily convertible to a firearm, this Court emphasized that the weapon had kept its initial characteristics as a firearm and could be made to fire with a simple correction or adjustment. In the case at bar, the weapon was not damaged; rather, it was missing a part necessary to make it fire. Once the part was available, however, the weapon readily could be made to fire—just as the weapon in York readily could be made to fire with a simple correction or adjustment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 Md. App. 90 - Moore v. State