State v. Roberson’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. “If there only needed to be one harm that was separate and identifiable, then rape and aggravated burglary could never merge because aggravated burglary will always involve the "separate and identifiable" harm caused by the intrusion into the dwelling. The same would be true of assault or any other crime constituting the aggravating element of physical harm for aggravated burglary. Thus, implicit in its rejection of a categorical rule and remand to this court is the idea that the offenses are of similar import when the harm caused by one crime is the same harm that is the aggravating circumstance of another crime.”

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

2. “that results from aggravated burglary is not a separate harm that is sufficient to support a finding of dissimilar import on its own - otherwise, aggravated burglary would always be a crime of dissimilar import to another offense, and the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the notion of such a categorical rule. But here, there was an additional harm that resulted from the aggravated burglary - theft of C.G.'s TVs, computer, and game system - and this harm is separate and identifiable from the physical harm that resulted from the rape. Under Ruff [ I ], separate convictions are permissible if”

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

3. “harms but one of those harms is the aggravating circumstance of the other crime. Indeed, this rule runs contrary to the Supreme Court of Ohio's explicit pronouncement that the defendant's conduct in each individual case should be the paramount consideration, and merger is not warranted if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.”

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