Tello v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our decisions construing these provisions have emphasized that criminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death, that the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that the carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong [citations omitted]. What, we believe, is abundantly clear from our decisions and from the governing statutory language is that criminally negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a risk of death, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that . caused it. The risk involved must have been “substantial and unjustifiable,” and the failure to perceive that risk must have been a “gross deviation” from reasonable care.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Queeman v. State · Queeman v. State

2. “[Tjhere is no question that defendant’s failure to see the vehicle stopped in the lane ahead of him resulted in the fatal accident. That failure may well constitute civil negligence. But the proof does not establish criminal negligence.... [Tjhe evidence does not show that defendant was engaged in any criminally culpable risk-creating conduct — e.g., dangerous speeding, racing, failure to obey traffic signals, or any other misconduct that created or contributed to a “substantial and unjustifiable” risk of death. Rather, it establishes only that defendant inexplicably faded to see the vehicle until he was so close that he could not prevent the collision. Though it resulted in two tragic deaths, that unexplained failure, without more, does not constitute criminally negligent homicide.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mitchell v. State

3. “Had there been only a single deviation from the ordinary standard of care, e.g., had appellant exercised ordinary care but for the failure to attach a safety chain between the trailer and the truck, then his conduct in “failing to properly secure a trailer to his truck” might constitute mere simple civil negligence, not criminal negligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mitchell v. State