State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Such a variance is fatal where the instruction submits a new and distinct offense to the jury. State v. Jones, 930 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Instructing on one form of the offense where the information charges another form of the same offense is not reversible error absent a showing that the variance between the information and the instruction is material and prejudicial. [State v. Lee, 841 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Mo. banc 1992)] Variances are material where they affect whether the defendant received adequate notice of the charges against him. State v. Whitfield, 939 S.W.2d 361, 366 (Mo. banc 1997). Variances are prejudicial where they affect the defendant's ability to defend the charge against him. Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weidt v. State · Spagner v. State

2. “[[Image here]] The Information specified a charge of inter ference with custody under subsection (d) while the jury was instructed on a charge of interference under subsection (e). There was no variance on the crime underlying either the Information or the jury instruction-Weidt was accused of and the jury was instructed on interference with custody under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-204 . There was a difference between the Information and the jury instruction on the subsection that defined the penalty to be applied for the crime. Assuming that difference rose to the level of a variance, however, it cannot reasonably be argued that Weidt was not on notice of the charge against her. The elements of the crime of interference with custody are identical under either subsection with the only difference being the additional element under subsection (d), which, if proved, provides an enhanced penalty for the crime. The absence of that additional element in the jury instruction does not affect whether or not the crime of interference with custody itself was committed under the statute. Accordingly, any variance between the Information and the jury instruction did not materially affect notice to Weidt of the crime for which she was charged. [111] Weidt claims that she could have been acquitted of the charge set forth in the Information based upon an affirmative defense that she did not conceal, harbor or refuse to reveal the location of the girl. She insists that there was insufficient evide”

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