Kellum v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 67 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We think that the evidence on behalf of the State was sufficient, if believed, to establish the offense charged against the appellant. `A simple assault under common law is typified by an attempt or offer, with unlawful force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another.' Clark & Marshall, Law of Crimes (6th Ed., Wingersky's Revision), § 10.15, p. 642. The statement in Yantz v. Warden, 210 Md. 343, 351 , 123 A.2d 601 [(1956)], that `[t]he crime of assault is an attempt by force to injure the person of another' is not inconsistent with the general statement made in Clark & Marshall just quoted. It was a sufficient definition for the purposes of that case, though not perhaps a full and comprehensive definition of the term, which has substantially (if not exactly) the same meaning in our law of torts as in our criminal law. We are not aware of any possible difference which might affect the result here. See 4 Am.Jur., Assault and Battery, §§ 2, 5, 6, pp. 124-125, 127-130. Cf. Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450 ; Hayes v. State, 211 Md. 111, 115 , 126 A.2d 576 ; Restatement, 1 Torts, §§ 21, 33. See also IV Blackstone, Commentaries (Oxford, 1769), pp. 216-17, as to the likeness of assault and battery as private and public wrongs."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Md. App. 627 - Woods v. State · 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State

2. ““In the instant case it is clear that the description objected to was not evidence outside the record which tends to connect the defendant with the crime, nor evidence that the trial was dominated by-prejudice and passion. While the statement could have been designed to arouse the sympathy of the jury for policemen in general, it is difficult to see how the jury could have been misled or prejudiced against Kellum because of the reading of it. . . . The jury, representing as it does the collective experience of the community, may be fairly presumed to have known, in general, the varied tasks and lot of a policeman and to have known the essential needs filled by police officers. Though the reading of such an effusion was, we think, certainly not to be commended and should, indeed, not have been permitted in the trial of the case, we are unable to find in it any such persuasive power or significance as might be expected to sway a jury of reasonable intelligence and ordinary human experience. We are, therefore, unable to conclude that any actual prejudice resulted from its reading.” 223 Md. at 88, 162 A. 2d at 478 .”

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

3. ““(a) Assault—In general.—An indictment, information, other charging document, or warrant for a crime described in § 3-202 ... is sufficient if it substantially states: ‘(name of defendant) on (date) in (county) assaulted (name of victim) in the.........degree or (describe other violation) in violation of (section violated) against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.’ ” “(b) Same—Bill of particulars.—If the general form of indictment or information described in subsection (a) of this section is used to charge a crime described in § 3-202 ... in a case in the circuit court, the defendant, on timely demand, is entitled to a bill of particulars.””

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