State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 876 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 883 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. (B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Wright · State v. Cook

2. “If the answer to both of these inquir[i]es is yes, merger is required; however, 'if the offenses are committed separately, or if the defendant has separate animus for each offense, then, according to R.C. 2941.25(B), the offenses will not merge.' " Id., quoting Johnson at ¶ 51 . {¶ 7} We also considered the particular offenses at issue, i.e., rape and aggravated burglary. We first noted that rape is defined under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) as "sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Bryant · State v. Roark

3. “As a practical matter, when determining whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25, courts must ask three questions when the defendant’s conduct supports multiple offenses: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they committed separately? and (3) Were they committed with separate animus or motivation? An affirmative answer to any of the above will permit separate convictions. The conduct, the animus, and the import must all be considered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion) · State v. Harmon