Pair v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 31 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is purely a question of reading legislative intent. If the Legislature intended two crimes arising out of a single act to be punished separately, we defer to that legislated choice. If the Legislature intended but a single punishment, we defer to that legislated choice. If we are uncertain as to what the Legislature intended, we turn to the so-called “Rule of Lenity,” by which we give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Quansah v. State · 221 Md. App. 544 - Latray v. State

2. ““It is the assumption (often not articulated) that under the circumstances of a given case, it is reasonable to believe that the legislature that enacted a particular statute or statutes would express some intent as to multiple punishment. That assumption is appropriate when a single act is charged as multiple offenses under a single statute (Ladner; Bell and Prince), where the subject of the two statutes is of necessity closely intertwined (Loscomb and Fields), where one offense is necessarily the overt act of a statutory offense (Walker), and where one statute, by its very nature, affects other offenses because it is designed to effect multiple punishment (Whack). Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that the legislative body contemplated the possibility of multiple punishment and to conclude that unless the intention in favor of multiple punishment is clear ... the Rule of Lenity or its equivalent should be applied against the imposition of multiple punishment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 Md. App. 544 - Latray v. State

3. “'Under federal double jeopardy principles and Maryland merger law, the principal test for determining the identity of offenses is the required evidence test.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 Md. App. 83 - Coleman v. State