178 Ind. App. 631 - Holt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Hatcher v. State (1980), Stout v. State (1985)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Hash v. State · Pulliam v. State · Johnson v. State · Hitch v. State
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]hen several articles of property are taken at the same time, from the same place, belonging to the same person or to several persons; there is but a single ‘larceny,’ i. e., a single offense. See, e. g. Furnace v. State, (1899) 153 Ind. 93 , 54 N.E. 441 ; Bell v. State, (1873) 42 Ind. 335 ; Jackson v. State, (1860) 14 Ind. 327 . See also, 52A C.J.S. Larceny §§ 53, 54 (1968). The rationale behind this rule is that the taking of several articles at the same time from the same place is pursuant to a single intent and design. See State v. Roberts, (1972) 210 Kan. 786 , 504 P.2d 242 ; State v. Vining, (1970) 2 Wash. App. 802 , 472 P.2d 564 , 53 A.L.R.3d 390 . See also, 2 R. Anderson, Wharton Criminal Law and Procedure § 450 (1957). Neither the particular ownership nor the particular articles give character to the act of theft, but are merely a part of the description of the particular offense committed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lash v. State · Dellenbach v. State“information in but one count may charge the theft of any one or more of the articles taken at one time and from one place. The failure, however, to describe all of the articles so taken in one count does not permit the prosecution to secure additional judgments and and sentences of theft, for the articles omitted in the single count, in either the same or a subsequent prosecution. That is, the State cannot split up a single offense and make distinct parts of that single offense (e.g., each article of property taken) the basis for separate or multiple prosecutions.... If only one offense is committed, there may be but one judgment and sentence."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.