State v. Talley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 46 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Comparing the elements of these crimes, we do not find that the elements correspond to such a degree that the commission of one offense will necessarily result in the commission of the other. For example, one may trespass in an occupied structure with the purpose to commit a felony other than a theft offense or without using or threatening the immediate use of force and be guilty of aggravated burglary but not robbery. Likewise, one may use or threaten the use of force in attempting or committing a theft offense in a place other than an occupied structure and be guilty of robbery but not aggravated burglary. Therefore, aggravated burglary under R.C. 2911.11 (A)(3) and robbery under R.C. 2911.02 are not allied offenses of similar import, and Turner was properly convicted and sentenced for both crimes.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luther A. Woodfork v. Harry K. Russell · State v. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2006)

2. ““(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. “(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mughni · 50 Ohio App. 3d 69 - City of Dayton v. McLaughlin

3. “In applying this statute, the courts have employed a two-step analysis described in State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 126 [ 397 N.E. 2d 1345 ] [14 O.O. 3d 373]. The first step requires a comparison of the elements with which the defendant is charged. Allied offenses of similar import are those offenses whose elements correspond to such a degree that the commission of one offense will result in the commission of the other. Id. at 128 [ 397 N.E. 2d 1345 ]. An illustration of this principle is rape, as defined by R.C. 2907.02(A)(1), and kidnapping, as defined by R.C. 2905.01(A) (4). A comparison of the elements of these two offenses reveals such a singularity of purpose and conduct that kidnapping may be said to be implicit within every forcible rape. State v. Price (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 136 [ 398 N.E. 2d 772 ] [14 O.O. 3d 379]; State v. Logan, supra; State v. Donald (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 73 [ 386 N.E. 2d 1341 ] [11 O.O. 3d 242]. "In the event that the court finds the offenses being compared are allied offenses of similar import, it must proceed to the second step of analysis which is indicated under R.C. 2941.25(B). This level of inquiry involves a review of the defendant's conduct for a determination as to whether the offenses were committed separately or with a separate animus as to each. If the offenses were so committed, the defendant may be convicted of them all.”

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