State v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All offenses that are of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Chambers · State v. Reeder

2. “Section 545.140.2 and Rule 23.05 provide that two or more offenses may be joined if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Joinder of offenses is either proper or improper under the law. Joinder is proper if any one of the criteria in § 545.140.2 exists. Liberal joinder of criminal charges is favored for the sake of judicial economy. We consider only the State’s evidence in determining whether joinder was proper.”

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

3. “must look to the elements of the crime and consider each in turn,[ is] required to take the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and to grant the State all reasonable inferences from the evidence. [This Court] disregard^] contrary inferences, unless they are such a natural and logical extension of the evidence that a reasonable juror would be unable to disregard them. Taking the evidence in this light, [the Court] consid-eres] whether a reasonable juror could find each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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