State v. Varnado’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Is the indictment or information sufficient to inform the court of the offense being charged in order that the court might properly regulate the evidence sought to be introduced? "(2) Does the indictment or information inform the accused of the nature and cause of the offense with which he is being charged? "(3) Is the indictment or information sufficient on its face to support a plea of former jeopardy in the event there is an attempt to try the defendant more than once for the same offense?”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fitzgerald · State v. Scheuering

2. ““Thus it may be seen that the district attorney, in drawing up this bill of information, has used the general words of the statute, the only difference being the use of the conjunctive ‘and’ where the disjunctive ‘or’ is .used in the statute itself, but does not state a single act upon which the charge is based or any of the facts or circumstances upon which his conclusions are based, thus failing to follow our basic requirements for a valid indictment. “ ‘It is the modern rule, universally applied by the courts, that in charging a statutory offense it is not necessary to use the exact words of the statute. An indictment or information for such an offense is sufficient if it follows the language of the statute substantially or charges the offense in equivalent words or others of the same import, if the defendant is thereby fully informed of the particular offense charged, and the court is enabled to see therefrom» on what statute the charge is founded * Am. Jur. 660, Section 101. “ ‘The general rule * * * is without application where the statutory words do not in themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements and ingredients necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished. As the courts have pointed out, the words of the statute may be sufficient to describe or legally characterize the offense denounced, and yet be wholly insufficient to inform the accused of the specific offense of which he is accused, so a”

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

3. ““Historically, the right of an accused to be informed in writing of the nature and cause of the accusation against him by the return of an indictment is the result of the assertion of the rights of oppressed peoples against the abuses of the sovereign, and this right has been regarded for centuries .as one of the most important securities to the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, as well as one of the immunities and bul- , warks of personal liberty. * * * the ■original thirteen states were cautiously slow to adopt any form of centralized government without positive assurance that the Bill of Rights would be adopted, and it was adopted at the very first .session of Congress, in 1789, guaranteeing, among other rights, that an ac■cused shall be informed of the nature .and cause of the accusation.””

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