State v. Rounds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “as charged, the jury instruction misstated the law and in so doing permitted the jury to infer an element of the crime based on a lower standard than the statute demands " (emphasis added) ). Beyond a generalized assertion, defendant does not explain how the failure to include all of the Fuller factors in the special jury verdict form affected his substantial rights and resulted in prejudice to him. ¶ 23. In any event, the special verdict form, while not setting forth all of the Fuller factors, encompassed a key component of several different factors, namely whether time elapsed between successive parts of defendant's conduct, and implicitly, given the testimony in this case, whether an intervening event occurred between successive parts of the defendant's conduct. As noted above, the complainant testified that she left the kitchen at one point and she stated that some of the hitting occurred before she left the kitchen and "[s]ome was after.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Michael Abel

2. “By allowing the jury to infer defendant’s intent by way of an instruction that should never have been given and failed to announce the proper standard, the jury “may have relied upon the presumption rather than upon the evidence” and thus convicted defendant based on a standard less rigorous than the Constitution or the statute at issue require. Because the errors could have affected the jury’s deliberation, and we cannot know what they decided or how they decided it, we find plain error in this instruction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vuley

3. “a clear and concise recitation [that allowed the court] 'to understand what defendant intended to preserve for appeal.' " State v. Rounds , 2011 VT 39 , ¶ 19, 189 Vt. 447 , 22 A.3d 477 (quoting State v. Wheelock , 158 Vt. 302 , 306, 609 A.2d 972 , 975 (1992) ). Thus, the main goal of Rule 30 -”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nathaniel R. Peatman