Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When we review claims of error involving jury instructions, the district court is afforded significant deference. Luedtke v. State, 2005 WY 98, ¶ 28 , 117 P.3d 1227, 1232 (Wyo.2005). A district court is "given wide latitude in instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire charge covers the relevant issue, reversible error will not be found." Id. (citations omitted); see also Hawes v. State, 2014 WY 127, ¶ 15 , 335 P.3d 1073, 1078 (Wyo.2014). Its ruling on an instruction must be prejudicial to constitute reversible error,. Heywood v. State, 2007 WY 149, ¶ 26 , 170 P.3d 1227, 1234 (Wyo.2007) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118 , 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo.2008). Because the purpose of jury instructions is to provide guidance on the applicable law, prejudice will result when the instructions confuse or mislead the jury. Id.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ricky L. Dougherty v. State · Julian Robert Marfil v. State

2. “f the original instructions are insufficient or if the jury expresses confusion or lack of understanding of a significant element of the applicable law, it is a court's duty to provide additional instructions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Julian Robert Marfil v. State · Miranda Rose Mraz v. State

3. “(a) Except under circumstance constituting sexual abuse of a minor in the first or second degree as defined by W.S. 6-2-314 and 6-2-315, an actor commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor'in the third degree if; (1) Being seventeen (17) years of age or older, the actor engages in sexual contact with a victim who is thirteen (13) through fifteen (15) years of age, and the victim is at least four (4) years younger than the actor; (ii) Being twenty (20) years of age or older, the actor engages in sexual intrusion with a victim who is either sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age, and the victim is at least four (4) years younger than the actor, and the actor occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim; (iii) Being less than sixteen (16) years of age, the actor inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim who is less than thirteen (13) years of age, and the victim is at least three (3) years younger than the actor; or (iv) Being seventeen (17) years of age or older, the actor knowingly takes immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a victim who is less than seventeen (17) years of age and the victim is at least four (4) years younger than the actor. (b) A person convicted under subsection (a) of this section is subject to 1mpnsonment for not more than fifteen (15) years. (c) A.person charged with violating the provisions of paragraph (a)(ii) of this section shall be ° subject to the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court,: except the matfer may be transfe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Julian Robert Marfil v. State