16 Or. App. 48 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is stated in Driscoll v. United States, 356 F.2d 324, 327-328 (1st Cir.1966), vacated on other grounds 390 U.S. 202 , 88 S.Ct. 899 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1968): "`We take Sansome [to mean that when the government has made out a compelling case, uncontroverted on the evidence, on an element required for the charged offense but not for the lesser-included offense, there is a duty on defendant to come forward with some evidence on that issue if he wishes to have the benefit of a lesser-included offense charge. To put it another way, while a judge cannot prevent a jury from rejecting the prosecution's entire case, he is not obligated, under these circumstances, to assist a jury in coming to an irrational conclusion of partial acceptance and partial rejection of the prosecution's case by giving a lesser-included offense instruction. Two prerequisites seem vital: that there be no factual dispute and that a finding contrary to the only evidence on the issue would be irrational. ' (Emphasis supplied.)" 98 Adv.Sh. at 603, 517 P.2d at 313 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 Or. App. 499 - State v. Taylor