State v. Clapp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First degree sexual offense. The defendant has been charged with two counts, two charges of first degree sexual offense. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act with the victim. A sexual act means fellatio, which is any touching by the lips or tongue of one person and the male sex organ of another, or any penetration, however slight, by an object into the genital opening of a person’s body. Second, that at the time of the acts alleged the victim was a child under the age of 13. And third, that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant was at least 12 years old and was at least four years older than the victim. Now if you find, from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date the defendant engaged in a sexual act with the victim, É.C., in the living room area of the defendant’s house by inserting his finger into her vagina and that at that time the victim was a child under the age of 13 years, and that the defendant was at least 12 years old, and was at least four years older than the victim, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find or if you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Also, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date the defendant engaged in a sexual ac”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Walston

2. “[T]he evidence at issue in this case, which consisted of testimony ... to the effect that [the witness] saw no indication that Defendant had an unnatural lust for or sexual interest in young girls, constituted nothing more than an attestation to Defendant's normalcy. As a result, given that the excluded evidence did not tend to show the existence or nonexistence of a pertinent trait of character, the trial court did not err by excluding [the] testimony[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 Md. App. 704 - Vigna v. State