Biddle v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When the detectives visited defendant’s home on the night of January 22, 1964, Henley observed the deceased baby’s body in an extreme condition of malnutrition, and when he unpinned her diaper he found blood spots on it and on her private parts from diaper rash. He observed another infant lying on newspapers in a bassinet, with a leather jacket over her, and her diapers were wet and dirty and there was a rash on her buttocks. In the kitchen the detectives saw a large, open can of Pet milk, with a saucer covering the top, and food on the stove which appeared to have been there for several days. Medical testimony shows that when the baby was born on October 18, 1963, she “seemed to be perfectly healthy.” There was also evidence that the baby weighed 5 pounds 8 ounces at birth. Testimony of the medical examiner reveals that he made a post-mortem examination of the baby’s body two days after her death; that she weighed 4 pounds 5½ ounces; that the intestinal tract and stomach were entirely empty, and that the body was dehydrated. It was his opinion that the child had not been fed for several days. [[Image here]] Here, the defendant [wife] was harassed by her husband’s accusation that none of her children [were] his, and the baby’s feedings appeared to depend upon how she and her husband got along. When the relationship between them was pleasant she fed the baby, but when it was not she neglected her. She had milk in the house to feed the baby the night it died, but it is apparent”

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

2. ““The precise question presented here seems never to have been decided by this Court. The general rule, supported by numerous authorities in England and the United States, is that if death is the direct consequence of the malicious omission of the performance of a duty, such as of a mother to feed her child, this is a case of murder, but if the omission is not wilful, and arose out of neglect only, it is manslaughter. Regina v. Hughes, 7 Cox C.C. 301, 302; Commonwealth v. Hall, 322 Mass. 523 , 78 N.E.2d 644, 647 ; Lewis v. State, 72 Ga. 164 , 53 Am.Rep. 835 ; Williams v. State, 88 Ga.App. 761 , 77 S.E.2d 770 ; Pallis v. State, 123 Ala. 12 , 26 So. 339 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 106 ; State v. Bischert, 131 Mont. 152 , 308 P.2d 969, 972 ; State v. Shephard, 255 Iowa 1218 , 124 N.W.2d 712, 721 (Iowa, Nov. 12, 1963, reh. den. Jan. 14, 1964); Gibson v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 360 , 50 S.W. 532 , 90 Am.St.Rep. 230 . See Annotation in 61 L.R.A. 290 ; also 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, 12th ed., § 485, p. 715; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law & Practice (Anderson), § 297, p. 623; 26 Am.Jur., Homicide, § 207, pp. 295, 296; 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 20, p. 867. “In Commonwealth v. Hall, supra, the defendant was convicted of ■ murder in the second degree. A jury found that a two-month-old baby died of starvation and dehydration resulting from the intentional conduct of the defendant in placing it in an attic and withholding food and liquids from it. “In Lewis v. State, supra, a five-year-old child came to his death ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Burden