State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, that on or about April 28, 2011, in the County of Webster, State of Missouri, the defendant possessed a checkbook owned by Justine Brown, a checkbook owned by Britney Steele, a Missouri driver’s license identifying Amber Steele, a social security card identifying Robert Ward, a social security card identifying Cynthia Ward and a Visa credit card identifying Robert Ward, and Second, that such items were means of identification, and Third, that defendant intended to sell or transfer such information for the purpose of committing identity theft, then you will find the defendánt guilty of trafficking in stolen identities. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. As used in this instruction, the term “means of identification” includes, but is' not limited to, the following: Social Security numbers; drivers license numbers; checking account numbers; savings account numbers; credit card numbers; debit card numbers; personal identification (PIN) code; electronic identification numbers; digital signatures; any other numbers or information that can be used to access a person’s financial resources; biometric data; fingerprints; passwords; parent’s legal surname prior to marriage; passports; or birth certificates. As used in this instruction, the term “possessed” means having actual or constructive possession of an object with knowledge of its presenc”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JUSTIN DION TUTTLE · State v. Henderson

2. “A person is responsible for his own conduct and h'e is also responsible for the conduct of another person in committing an offense if he acts with the other person with the common purpose of committing that offense or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the, other person in committing it. If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about July 16, 2010, in the County of Saline, State of Missouri, the defendant or [Maldonado] possessed 90 grams or more of any material or mixture containing any quantity of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and Second, that defendant knew or was aware of the presence and nature of the controlled substance, then you are instructed that the offense of trafficking in the - second degree has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that trafficking in the second degree, the defendant acted together with or aided [Maldonado] in committed that offense, then you will find the defendant guilty of trafficking the second degree.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres · State v. Harding

3. “1. A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein, and when in effecting entry or while in the building or inhabitable structure or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: [[Image here]] (3) There is present in the structure another person who is not a participant in the crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Harrell · State of Missouri v. Christopher Eric Hunt