20 Md. App. 296 - Henry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he judge may not consider evidence which possesses such a low degree of reliability that it raises a substantial possibility that his judgment may be influenced by inaccurate or false information. Consideration of such information leads to unwarranted assumption of guilt. For this reason it has been recognized that when they stand alone, bald accusations of criminal conduct for which a person either has not been tried or has been tried and acquitted may not be considered by the sentencing judge. Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 584 , 217 A.2d 298, 299 (1966); Walker v. State, 186 Md. 440, 448 , 47 A.2d 47, 48 (1946); Baker v. State, supra, 3 Md.App. [251] at 257-58, 238 A.2d [561] at 566.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Smith v. State · 60 Md. App. 539 - Hurley v. State

2. ““The relationship between common law burglary and daytime housebreaking provides a perfect example of such semantic difficulty. Daytime housebreaking statutes were devised to fill the gap in the law where the ‘nighttime’ element of burglary was either non-existent or could not be shown. In the remedial statutes however, did the use of the word ‘daytime’ contemplate an alternative element which must, as any other element of the crime, be affirmatively shown? or did ‘daytime’ mean simply ‘anything less than demonstrated nighttime?’ Georgia became mired in literalism and reversed a conviction for daytime housebreaking because the evidence did not show clearly that the offense occurred ‘in the daytime.’ In Jones v. State, 63 Ga. 141 (1879), it was held, ‘To prove a burglary was committed in the day or in the night, one or the other, is certainly not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that burglary in the daytime was committed.’ “This Court, however, in line with more enlightened thought, set its face against such an absurdity [by adopting holdings (citations omitted)] * * * to the effect that ‘burglary in the second degree was not a different offense from common law burglary but was merely a lesser degree of the same offense’ and that ‘when the proof fails to show the time of the offense then the burglar may be punished under the statute providing the lesser penalty.’ Absent such better conceptualization, ' a bonanza would have been created for some clever ‘twilight burglar’ or f”

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

3. ““We note that the appellant called the judge’s attention to the alleged inconsistency after the jury had been excused. He interposed no objection to the jury’s recall and reconstitution nor to any of the subsequent proceedings. The challenge to the procedure was, therefore, not raised and ruled upon below. We eschew easy reliance upon Maryland Rule 1085, however, because of our belief that even the initial verdicts were not inconsistent. Unauthorized use is, we hold, a lesser included offense within its parent crime of larceny and, as such, a conviction therefor merges into a conviction for the greater, parent crime.” Id. at 298-99 .”

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