Barr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 46 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Every person who, after having been twice convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in some penal institution for felony, whether committed heretofore or hereafter, and whether committed in this state or elsewhere within the limits of the United States of America, shall be convicted in any circuit or criminal court in this state for a felony hereafter committed, shall be deemed and taken to be an habitual criminal, and he or she shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for and during his or her life." " To authorize a sentence of imprisonment for life under this chapter [§§ 9-2207, 9-2208], the indictment or information shall allege that the defendant has been previously twice convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in some penal institution, for felonies, describing each separately. If the trial jury, in their verdict, find these facts to be true, and convict such defendant of the third felony, the trial court, after passing sentence of imprisonment for a specific term, as prescribed by the statute, shall proceed to sentence the defendant to imprisonment for his or her life." (our emphasis)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodman v. Kunkle · Sammons v. State

2. “"Appellant is in error in his assumption that two substantive offenses are charged in the indictment. Only one crime is charged... . It will be observed that by the express terms of [the Habitual Criminal Statute] the indictment or information must allege that the defendant had been previously convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in some penal institution for felonies before he can be adjudged an habitual criminal."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCormick v. State · McCormick v. State

3. “`The prisoner is not tried over again for his first offense, but he has a right to know that the question of his having committed a first offense is to be presented to the jury, and if it be shown that he did commit a former offense, that his punishment will be increased thereby, so that he may rebut this fact in any manner the law points out to him. The question of identity certainly may be raised, and he has a right to show that he is not the person named in the former record. He might also show that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case, or that the judgment of conviction had been set aside, a new trial granted him, and that he had been acquitted. How is he to make any of these defenses unless notified by the indictment of the intention of the State to hold him as guilty of a second or third offense? Lord Campbell, Ch. J., in an English case, observed: "A statement of a previous conviction does not charge an offense. It is only the averment of a fact which may affect the punishment. The jury do not find the person guilty of the previous offense; they only find that he was previously convicted of it, as a historical fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Ind. App. 231 - State, Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Waller