181 Ind. App. 634 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2012
15 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 The People v. Ross · 101 So. 2d 373 - Mead v. State · 163 Ind. App. 633 - Pinkston v. State · Tarlor v. State · 122 F. Supp. 367 - United States v. Mendoza
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Robinson v. State, [ 57 Ind. 113 (1877) ], our Supreme Court stated at page 114: [T]he words ‘conceals the fact of the crime’ ... must be held to mean concealment of the fact that a crime has been committed, unconnected with the fact that the accused was the perpetrátor; and further ... the concealment of the fact of the crime must be the result of some positive act done by the accused, and calculated to prevent discovery of the fact of the offense of which he stands charged. Thus, that the accused conceals evidence of his own guilt is not concealment of the fact “that the offense has been committed,” State v. Hoke, [ 84 Ind. 137 (1882) ], and the concealment of facts that an offense has been committed must be the result of the defendant’s positive acts. Jones v. State, [ 14 Ind. 120 (1860) ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chrzan · Reeves v. State“"Section 1597 provides that If any person who has committed an offence, thereafter is absent from the State, or so conceals himself that process can not be served upon him, or conceals the fact that the offence has been committed, the time of absence or concealment is not to be included in computing the period of limitation. "Here the averment is that the accused fled from the county and concealed himself, but there is no averment as to how long he remained absent or concealed. For aught that appears, he may have returned the next week and have ever since remained in that county and unconcealed. It is only the time of absence or concealment that is omitted in computing the period of limitation. If the sufficiency of the information depended on this averment, it would be bad." 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Willner v. State“conceals the fact that the offense has been committed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marshall v. State
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.