2 Md. App. 80 - Boone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 104 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that imposition of a sentence in a criminal case in this State is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trial judge who hears the case and sees the witnesses and the accused. The length of the sentence is therefore not ordinarily reviewable on appeal, if it is within the statutory limit and not dictated by passion, prejudice, ill will or any other unworthy motive. The sentencing judge may, of course, after verdict, inquire into the past criminal record of the defendant and hear evidence and receive reports in aggravation or mitigation of punishment; the inquiry of the judge is not limited by the strict rules of evidence and he is invested with wide discretion in determining the sentence to be imposed. In other words, to aid the sentencing judge in exercising this discretion intelligently, the procedural policy of the State encourages him to consider information concerning the convicted person’s reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed, so that he may consider information obtained outside the courtroom and from persons whom the defendant has not been permitted to confront or cross-examine. “But nothing in these rules immunizes the procedure pursuant to which an accused is sentenced after verdict from scrutiny under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitut”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 20 Md. App. 296 - Henry v. State

2. “A failure to consummate the crime is as much an essential element of an attempt as the intent and the performance of an overt act towards its commission. Evidence that a crime has been committed will not sustain a verdict on an attempt to commit it because the essential element of interception or prevention of execution is lacking. Consummation of the crime can take the behavior out of the definition of an “attempt. ” See Clark & Marshall, Law on Crimes, supra, Sec. 4.14, citing People v. Lardner, 300 Ill. 264, 267 , 133 N.E. 375 , 19 A.L.R. 721 (1921), where a conviction for an “attempt to commit larceny” was reversed upon facts which showed the consummation of the larceny.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lakeysha P.

3. ““Although we feel the better practice, under the holdings in Heinze v. State, 184 Md. 613, 617-19 , 42 A. 2d 128 (1945), would have been for the trial judge to direct the jury to return to the jury room to correct what was patently an inconsistency in the verdict announced by them, in the absence of a Motion in Arrest of Judgment or a request for a correction of the record, this contention is not properly before us. Here, as in Bell , only one sentence was imposed which was within the penalty prescribed by Art. 27, Sec. 488, supra, for either of the offenses; there was no prejudice to the Appellant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Md. App. 264 - McDuffie v. State