State v. Sibert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when he or she is aware of a fact, circumstance or result which is described by law as being a crime, whether or not the person is aware that the fact, circumstance or result is a crime. If a person has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which are described by law as being a crime, the jury is permitted but not required to find that he or she acted with knowledge. Acting knowingly or with knowledge also is established if a person acts intentionally.[ [5] ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Sibert

2. “jury instructions and (2) impose a sentence that was not authorized by the jury's verdict. As the harmless error doctrine does not apply to the second error, I would vacate Richard Sibert's sentence and remand for resentencing. The Instructional Error ¶ 30 The lead opinion correctly sets forth the relevant controlling precedent concerning”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Sibert

3. “jury instruction and that it was error to fail to require the State to prove the identity of the substance to a jury. He also disputes his sentence, arguing that under Blakely [1] the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt his prior convictions to a jury. Finally, Sibert challenges as erroneous the jury instruction with respect to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sibert