Henson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although there is a paucity of authority for this proposition in Maryland, reported decisions from our sister states recognize the propriety of prohibiting certain types of employment as a special condition of probation. See e.g. , People v. Caruso , 174 Cal. App. 2d 624 , 647, 345 P.2d 282 (1959), cert. denied , 363 U.S. 819 , 80 S. Ct. 1259 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1517 (1960) (finding no abuse of discretion where condition of probation required the defendant to 'remain out of the automobile business' even though the 'automobile business is the only one which he knows' in car dealership fraud case); State v. Fox , 22 Conn. App. 449 , 457, 577 A.2d 1111 (1990) ('[T]he special condition prohibiting the defendant from engaging in private real estate work during the period of probation was reasonably related to his rehabilitation in light of the crimes he had committed [extortion through position as town planner] and the public service work he was to perform.'); Morgan v. State , 285 Ga. App. 254 , 260, 645 S.E.2d 745 (2007), aff'd in part on alt. grounds , 289 Ga. App. 209 , 656 S.E.2d 857 (2008) (owner of animal grooming business convicted of cruelty to animals prohibited from owning or caring for animals as special condition of probation-defendant 'failed to carry his burden of showing that the special condition is unreasonable.'); Davis v. State , 172 Ga. App. 787 , 790, 324 S.E.2d 767 (1984) (After conviction of violating state liquor laws, 'special conditions of probation reasonably ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Jones

2. “[A] condition to the granting of probation which compels a defendant to give up a fundamental or constitutional right is not in and of itself unconstitutional or invalid. [A] court will not strike down conditions of release, even if they implicate fundamental rights, if such conditions are reasonably related to the ends of rehabilitation and protection of the public from recidivism. Such a condition cannot stand [only] if it is not related to the crime of which defendant has been convicted and if it has no reasonable relation to future criminality.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Allen v. State

3. “Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In making that determination, the court shall determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 223 Md. App. 519 - Randall v. State