James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “reviews de movo the question of whether a defendant's constitutional protection against double jeopardy has been violated.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richard J. Redding v. State · Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyoming

2. “Federal double jeopardy law appears to have been settled in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), with the Supreme Court's holding that "[in both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution contexts, this Court has concluded that where the two offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot survive the 'same-elements' test, the double jeopardy bar applies." The inquiry under the same-elements test is "whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the 'same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution." Id. Like the United States Supreme Court, this Court recognizes and follows the same-elements test. See, eg., Granzer v. State, 2010 WY 130 , ¶ 13 239 P.3d 640, 645 (Wyo.2010); Snow v. State, 2009 WY 117, ¶ 16 , 216 P.3d 505, 510 (Wyo.2009); and Najera v. State, 2009 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 214 P.3d 990, 994 (Wyo.2009).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyoming

3. “In addition to the same-elements test, this Court has also considered a merger doe- trine that allows for the consideration of other factors: The question of merger as a bar to multiple sentences for the same act, however, summons a more complex appellate standard of review. As a practical matter, in appeals alleging imposition of multiple sentences for a single act, the focus necessarily expands to embrace those facts proven at trial. The ultimate question - becomes whether those facts reveal a single eriminal act or multiple and distinct offenses against the victim or victims and hence the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyoming