173 Ind. App. 120 - Collier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * In other words Collier would have this court believe that since both of his convictions stem from the same prohibited conduct, he is being punished twice for the same offense. This argument is without merit. The crime of conspiracy is a separate and distinct offense from the substantive felony which follows it. Lane v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 468 [ 288 N.E.2d 258 ]. In Durke v. State (1932), 204 Ind. 370 [ 183 N.E. 97 ], the Indiana Supreme Court held that prosecution for burglary did not bar prosecution of the same defendant for conspiracy to commit burglary. In light of these decisions, we hold here that one set of operative facts gave rise to two distinct offenses and that Collier was not subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense. . . . ””

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

2. ““The affidavit must further show that the absence of such witness has not been procured by the act or connivance of the defendant, nor by others at his request, nor with his knowledge and consent, and what facts he believes the witness will testify to, and that he believes them to be true, and that he is unable to prove such facts by any other witness whose testimony can be readily procured * * *. The defendant shall file such affidavit for continuance at least five [5] days before the date set for trial or shall sustain the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the court, that the defendant is not at fault for failing to file such affidavit for continuance at an earlier date * *”

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

3. ““In Indiana the offense of conspiracy is purely statutory. The essence of this crime is the unlawful agreement and in Indiana the law states that this agreement of the parties need not be formal and need not be proved by direct evidence.””

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