State v. Gallegos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 129 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The crime of burglary requires proof of the following two things: 1. The defendant entered or remained unlawfully in or on a residential or a non-residential structure, and 2. The defendant did so with the intent to commit aggravated assault. The crime of felonious aggravated assault requires proof that: 1. The defendant intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly caused any physical injury to another person while using a deadly weapon, or 2. The defendant intentionally placed another person in reasonable apprehension of an immediate physical injury while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon. 3. If a person enters or remains in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit felonious aggravated assault, that person is guilty of burglary.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gallegos v. Schriro · State v. Dann

2. ““Recklessly” means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but who is unaware of such risk solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect to such risk.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leal v. Holder · State v. Gallegos

3. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all reasonable inferences against defendant. Dr. Bolduc, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified that the anal trauma occurred while the victim was alive. This uncontradicted expert testimony defeats the argument that the victim was not a person at the time of the sexual penetration. We likewise reject defendant’s contention that he did not possess the mental state of “knowingly” because he believed that the victim was dead at the time of the sexual penetration. Sufficient evidence establishes that defendant formed the intent to sexually assault the victim before her death. Officer Saldate’s testimony regarding defendant’s confessions, although not entirely consistent with defendant’s trial testimony, included the following additional details. Officer Saldate testified that defendant had discussed with George [Smallwood] his previous acts of sexual intercourse be fore entering the victim’s room. Defendant further stated that he thought about fondling the victim’s “ass.” Defendant got the baby oil from the bathroom, which he eventually applied to his penis and the victim’s anus to facilitate the penetration. Defendant also stated that once he and George thought that the victim was dead, they decided that they “might as well finish.” We also repudiate defendant’s argument for public policy reasons. We refuse to apply a str”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gallegos v. Schriro