186 N.J. Super. 236 - State v. Schenck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “expansion of the crime of burglary has led to serious problems. Since every burglary is by hypothesis an attempt to commit some other crime, and since even the lower degrees of burglary are often punishable more severely than the crime which the actor was preparing to commit, the great expansion of burglary has introduced serious anomalies in prosecution and punishment____ The needed reform [in the Criminal Code] takes the direction of narrowing the offense to something like the distinctive situation for which it was originally devised: invasion of premises under circumstances specially likely to terrorize occupants. [State v. Schenck, 186 N.J.Super. 236, 238 , 452 A.2d 223 (Law Div.1982) (quoting II Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, “The New Jersey Penal Code,” at 209-10 (Oct. 1971)).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Marc A. Olivero (073364)

2. “one who attempts to commit a theft (with the aggravating circumstances for a robbery being present) is guilty — if at all — of robbery. In other words he cannot be charged with attempt (N.J.S.A 2C:5-1) to attempt to commit a theft (N.J.S.A 2C:15-l(a)). The State’s argument that entering the bank with intent to commit robbery is the equivalent of an attempt to rob lacks rational underpinning. [Id. at 240, 452 A.2d 223 ],”

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