17 Md. App. 7 - Beasley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The language in the information [footnote omitted] charges that the appellant ‘while undergoing lawful custody in pursuance of a sentence * * * did * * * from * * * said custody, escape * * * .’ We held in Shifflett v. State, 4 Md. App. 227 that the escape of a prisoner while in constructive custody under a work release program constituted an escap e from aplace of confinement in violation of § 189. In the light of Shifflett we now conclude that the allegations in the information are legally equivalent to stating that the appellant escaped from a place of confinement as proscribed by § 139. The language used to charge a violation of a statutory offense need not be in the exact language of the statute.” (Emphasis supplied.) 17 Md. App. at 11 , 299 A. 2d at 484 .”

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

2. ““If any offender or person legally detained and confined in the penitentiary or jail, or house of correction, or reformatory, or station house, or any other place of confinement, in this State, shall escape he shall be guilty of a felony and on conviction thereof by the Criminal Court of Baltimore City or by the circuit court of the county in which the escape takes place, be sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, jail or house of correction for such additional period, not exceeding ten years, as the court may adjudge. The sentence so imposed shall be consecutive to the sentence under which the inmate was originally confined and shall not be suspended.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Md. App. 438 - Robinson v. State

3. ““There is no substantial difference in the conduct prohibited by the two statutes. Section 139 proscribes the escape of prisoners generally from a place of confinement while § 700A (c) prohibits the escape of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction while on a work release program. We hold therefore that at the time of the enactment of § 700A (c) in 1963 and prior to the 1966 amendment of § 139 there was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two statutes and that both were then in full force and effect.” 17 Md. App. at 13 , 299 A. 2d at 485 .”

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