Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 SD 70 - State v. Cameron

State v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Costello v. United States · Commonwealth v. Barney · Fahlsing v. Teters · Dahn v. Trownsell · Elfring v. Paterson

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. “The circuit court dismissed the indictment without specifying the statutory basis upon which the motion was granted. This Court has previously stated that, “[bjecause these statutory grounds are exclusive” where the circuit court dismisses an indictment without specifying the statutory basis upon which the motion was granted, the order dismissing the indictment is reversible. Consequently, the order is subject to reversal for this reason alone. Notwithstanding the trial court’s failure to specify the statutory basis for dismissing the indictment, the trial court also impermissibly considered the facts of the case in making its decision to dismiss. This Court has held that the trial court cannot “inquire into the legality or sufficiency of the evidence upon which an indictment is based when considering a dismissal under SDCL 23A-8-2.” “An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.” The trial court impermissibly considered facts upon which the indictment was based to arrive at the conclusion the facts did not constitute the crime charged. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a trial on the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Upon motion of a defendant made pursuant to subdivision 23A-8-3 (1), (2) or (3), the court must dismiss an indictment or information in any of the following eases: (1) When it is not found, endorsed, and presented or filed as prescribed by this title; (2) When the names of the witnesses are not inserted at the foot of the indictment or information or endorsed thereon; (3) When it does not substantially conform to the requirements of this title; (4) When more than one offense is charged in a single count; (5) When it does not describe a public offense; (6) When it contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other bar to the prosecution; (7) When the grand jury which filed the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged because it was not within the jurisdiction of the grand jury or because the court was without jurisdiction of the offense charged;' (8) When a person was permitted to be present during the session of the grand jury while the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration, except as provided in § 23A-5-11; or (9) When a defendant charged by information did not have or waive a preliminary hearing before the information was filed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.