171 Md. App. 223 - Hurst v. State’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. ““[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Okay. When you were at the area of your car did there come a time that you were approached by a person who is later identified as Richard David Hurst? [MS. E.]: Yes. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And when the defendant approached you as you stood next to your car what did he say to you? [MS. E.]: He said that he needed directions, um, he was, he needed to, um, he needed directions to go visit a Mend, I think around Washington Street, Washington and University Avenue. He would say well I think this street intersects this University does it? And I said I didn’t know. Uh, he said he need, he just really wanted to get over to see his Mend, um, he know it was really close by. Um— [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Did there come a time that he moved closer to you and made a statement to you? [MS. E.]: Yes he forced his way to the car. He, um, told me that he had a knife, um, not— [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Did you ever see the knife? [MS. E.]: No, didn’t want to. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Did he ever show the knife to you? [MS. E.]: No. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Did he ever indicate where the knife was? [MS. E.]: In his pocket. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And after he told you to get in the car what did he do? [MS. EJ: He forced his way into the car. He told me to, um, roll up all my windows, um, to lock the doors, and that all he wanted was a lift to his Mend’s apartment. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: All right. And after you drove for some time did there come a time that he told you something else? [MS. E.]: Well we dr”

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

2. ““The just-cited cases undermine appellant’s assertion that to be admissible the prior offenses must be a ‘signature crime,’ nor does appellant persuade us that such a requirement should be imposed in a case like this where the prior actions by the defendant against Ms. E. were quite similar, albeit not precisely identical, to those committed upon Ms. P. In both instances, appellant approached women seeking directions. In each case, the victims were transported by automobile, and the car doors were locked during the transport by appellant. Further, according to the victims, appellant told both women that he had a knife. He also told both women that everything was going to be okay if they cooperated. Appellant traveled with both women for a long time, eventually coming to secluded areas where he first forced them to perform oral sex and then engaged in nonconsensual vaginal intercourse with them. Following these acts, he allowed the women to dress and go free.””

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