State v. Budik’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]here is no evidence in the record that Budik’s false statements ... prevented or obstructed any act. [Subsection (4) of our statute covers] “deception” that “[prevents or obstructs” certain acts.... The relevant question therefore becomes whether some act would have been performed but for the [defendant’s] false statement. If not, it cannot be said that the [defendant’s] deception prevented or obstructed an act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of another person. [[Image here]] There is simply no evidence in the record that[,] but for Budik’s false disavowal of knowledge of the identity of the shooters[,] anyone would have “perform[ed] an [additional] act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension” of one of the shooters.... [Thus], there is no evidence that Budik’s deception ... caused the prevention or obstruction of any act.”

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

2. “(1) knows that another person (a)'has committed a crime or juvenile offense' or(b)'is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a crime or juvenile offense' or(c)'has escaped from a detention facility' and (2)intends 'to prevent, hinder, or delay the apprehension or prosecution' ofthat other person and (3)undertakes one of the six specified actions.”

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

3. “requires an affirmative act or statement that raises a defense for [principal felon]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Rivera