Bowen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 71 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The essential element in the crime of larceny after trust is the conversion. Code, 1951, Article 27, Section 420, supra; Hochheimer on Criminal Law, (2d Ed.), Section 365, page 402. The State in its brief says: ‘It is the general rule that the proper venue for embezzlement is the county where the act of appropriation or conversion took place.’ However, it further contends that there was a fair inference that, if a conversion took place with fraudulent intent, such intent was conceived in Montgomery County and that where the intent to embezzle is formed determines the jurisdiction in a prosecution for embezzlement. It relies on People v. Baker, 64 Cal. App. 336 , 221 P. 654 [1923], and People v. Brock, 21 Cal. App. 2d 601 , 70 P. 2d 210 [1937], Assuming, without deciding and we do not here so decide, that the proper jurisdiction in a prosecution for embezzlement is that in which the intent to embezzle is formed, there is not sufficient evidence here that there was any intent on the part of either Security or appellant to embezzle the money when the checks were received at Security’s Bethesda office in Montgomery County, Maryland. The evidence here shows without contradiction that when the checks were received there were ample funds of Security in the Security Bank in Washington to pay off the trust in the amount of $12,500.00.” (Emphasis supplied.) 206 Md. at 375-76 , 111 A. 2d at 847 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Urciolo v. State

2. ““ ‘The offense was committed at the time when and place where appellant converted this money to his own use; and, in the absence of any evidence showing a conversion in Pike County, Ky., it is fair to presume that the conversion took place in the state of Virginia when and at the times appellant drew from the bank the money deposited there to his credit, with the purpose of not investing it in timber in Pike County, but of appropriating it to his own use; and as the crime charged is proven to have been committed in the state of Virginia, the courts of that state alone have jurisdiction of prosecutions against the perpetrator of the offense. The courts of this state cannot take cognizance of crime committed against the laws of a neighboring state. The crime of conversion under this statute is a single offense complete in itself, when the fraudulent conversion takes place.’ ” 206 Md. at 378 , 111 A. 2d at 848 . 8”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Urciolo v. State

3. ““The State also claims that in cases of indictment for embezzlement jurisdiction is properly laid in the county where the accused was under obligation to account. Among cases relied on are the following: Kossakowski v. People, 177 Ill. 563 , 53 N. E. 115 ; People v. Davis, 269 Ill. 256 , 110 N. E. 9 ; Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39 , 42 So. 52 ; Cole v. State, (Ala.), 67 So. 2d 64 . Assuming, without deciding, and we do not so decide, that this is a true rule, the person to whom appellant or Security were supposed to account was Perpetual. The office of this corporation is located at Eleventh and E Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. Therefore, the accounting was to be made in the District of Columbia and not in Maryland.” (Emphasis supplied.) 206 Md. at 377 , 111 A. 2d at 848 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Urciolo v. State