State v. Gatewood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 58 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Intent is a state of mind existing at the time a person commits an offense. If intent must have definite and substantive proof it would be almost impossible to convict, absent facts disclosing a culmination of the intent. The mind of an alleged offender, however, may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom. . . .” (p. 684.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Kan. App. 2d 705 - State v. Acheson · State v. Mans

2. ““Appellant next argues there was no evidence appellant broke into the dwelling ‘with intent to commit larceny.’ ... It may be conceded there was no direct proof of appellant’s intent. It is also true the statute makes ‘intent to commit some felony, or any larceny therein’ an element of the offense of burglary in the first degree. “Intent is a state of mind existing at the time a person commits an offense. If intent must have definite and substantive proof it would be almost impossible to convict, absent facts disclosing a culmination of the intent. The mind of an alleged offender, however, may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom. Frankness requires it be stated there is not complete unanimity of opinion among the courts relative to whether the intent to commit larceny, in connection with a burglary charge, must be affirmatively shown to exist as distinct from some other offense that might have been intended. In Simpson v. State of Florida, 81 Fla. 292 , 87 S. 920, it was held such intent must be affirmatively shown by direct or circumstantial evidence. In State v. Riggs, 74 Minn. 460 , 77 N.W. 302 , relied on by appellant, a divided court held the evidence insufficient to disclose an intent to commit larceny. That decision is discussed in our own case of State v. Van Gilder, 140 Kan. 66 , 33 P.2d 936 . There was some positive evidence in the Minnesota case the defendant did not intend to steal but to buy liquor at the place he entere”

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

3. ““In a prosecution for burglary of a dwelling house of another in the nighttime the 'intent to commit some felony, or any larceny therein’ is a necessary element of burglary in the first degree under G.S. 1935, 21-513.” Syl. ¶ 2. “Intent is a state of mind existing at the time an offense is committed and may be shown by acts, circumstances and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom and need not be established by direct proof.” Syl. ¶ 3. “In the absence of proof of other intent, or an explanation of an unlawful breaking and entry into the dwelling house of another at night, the inference is the intent of the intruder was to commit larceny rather than some other felony.” Syl. ¶ 4.”

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