State v. Selzer’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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a defendant has been prosecuted for one or more offenses arising out of a single criminal episode, a subsequent prosecution for the same or a different offense arising out of the same criminal episode is barred if: ' (a) the subsequent prosecution is for an offense that was or should have been tried under [section 402(2)] in the former prosecution; and (b) the former prosecution: (i) resulted in acquittal; (ii) resulted in conviction; (i) was improperly terminated; or (iv) was terminated by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has -not been reversed, set aside, or vacated and that necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established to secure conviction in the subsequent prosecution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West Valley City v. Parkinson · 2015 UT App 170 - State v. Rushton

2. “(I) to protect a defendant from the governmental harassment of being subjected to successive trials for offenses stemming from the same criminal episode; and (2) to ensure finality without unduly burdening the judicial process by repetitious litigation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West Valley City v. Parkinson · 2015 UT App 170 - State v. Rushton

3. “all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West Valley City v. Parkinson · 2015 UT App 170 - State v. Rushton