State v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[F]or the felony murder statute to apply when the underlying felony is theft, a "court must determine whether the killing is closely connected to the initial taking of the property in time, place, causation, and continuity of action." * * * If the [felony murder] rule is to have any deterrent effect, it must not be extended to killings which are collateral to and separate from the underlying felony. Moreover, requiring a close nexus between the initial taking and the killing is particularly appropriate given that the felony murder rule is "a legal fiction in which the intent and the malice to commit the underlying felony is `transferred' to elevate an unintentional killing to ... murder." * * * If, as the state contends, grand theft is an offense that continues throughout a defendant's unauthorized use, it would follow that a prosecution could commence ten years after the initial taking, so long as the defendant were caught using the property ten years later. However, we have held that grand theft is not a continuing offense for the purpose of the statute of limitations.... Acceptance of the continuing crime argument in this case would create an anomaly—a defendant could be charged with third degree felony murder even where the statute of limitations would preclude prosecution for the underlying felony of grand theft.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 1066 - State v. Williams · 831 So. 2d 1230 - House v. State

2. ““In this case, the appellant reached a place of temporary safety when he arrived and resided in the Bristol, Virginia area for twenty days prior to the killing. The appellant was not being actively and continuously pursued by police during this time, nor was he attempting to hide from the police. Indeed, he, along with Worley and Sarah[,] were [szc] daily driving the stolen vehicle to various cities in Tennessee. Clearly, they had reached a place of safety before the killing occurred. While there was an attenuated causal connection between the initial taking of the vehicle and the killing since the appellant was attempting to evade arrest for theft of the vehicle when the collision occurred, this tenuous causal connection was insufficient in light of the fact that the killing was completely unconnected to the initial taking of the vehicle in time, place, and continuity of action.” Pierce, 23 S.W3d at 297.* 4”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 Ill. App. 3d 234 - People v. Moore

3. “The State's position is that no period of time or intervening events can break the chain between the felony and the killing when the underlying felony is theft. According to the State, so long as a defendant is exercising control over an article of stolen property when an accidental or unintentional killing occurs, that defendant can be convicted of felony murder even it the property was initially stolen twenty years before the accidental or unintentional killing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 1066 - State v. Williams