Gullett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “Substance” is that which is essential to the making of a valid charge of crime.’ Soverdike v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 192, 196 , 102 N.E.2d 367 . ‘The names of third persons who are only incidentally or collaterally connected with the offense charged against an accused need not be stated in an affidavit or indictment. State v. Hopper (1892), 133 Ind. 460 , 32 N.E. 878 ; Joyce on Indictments, 2d Ed., § 438. But as a general rule the name of one injured in his person or property, by the act of the accused, or the name of one whose identity is essential to a proper description of the offense charged should be alleged if known, and if unknown the fact should be alleged. Ibid. § 432; 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 142.’ Robinson v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 396 , 112 N.E.2d 861, 862 . It is quite evident that § 10-3011, Burns’ 1942 Replacement, defining the offense of vehicle taking requires the state to allege and prove that the vehicle used, driven, run or operated was ‘the property of another.’ This is a material and essential allegation of substance the same as the ownership of property which is stolen. ‘The ownership of property stolen is a material allegation descriptive of the offense. Shelby v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 186 , 96 N.E.2d 340 ; Rhoades v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 569 , 70 N.E.2d 27 .’ State ex rel. Kaufman v. Gould (1951), 229 Ind. 288, 291 , 98 N.E.2d 184 , supra. Therefore, it was error to permit the state to amend each count of the amended affidavit ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Ind. App. 687 - Evans v. State