24 Wash. 2d 802 - State v. O'Neil’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2002
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Dunn v. United States · Kuck v. State · 75 Cal. App. 16 - People v. Andursky · State v. Powers · State v. Baird
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“What constitutes inconsistency depends upon the particular circumstances. If the crimes charged in separate counts are composed of different elements, a verdict of acquittal on one ordinarily is not inconsistent with a verdict of guilty on another. 23 C. J. S. 1093, § 1403; State v. Powers, 152 Wash. 155 , 277 Pac. 377 ; State v. Baird, 200 Wash. 227 , 93 P. (2d) 409 . But where, as in the instant case, two offenses growing out of the same transaction are charged in separate counts of an indictment or information, and one offense includes elements or acts necessary to the commission of the other offense, a verdict of acquittal of the one is inconsistent with a verdict of guilty of the other. [Citing cases.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the present case, the offenses charged in the two counts of the information were based upon the same transaction. There was no evidence of the commission of an assault by appellant upon Spray, except the latter's testimony narrated above. The jury found by its verdict of not guilty on count No. 1 that appellant did not assault Spray, and thus eliminated from count No. 2 such an assault as an essential aggravating incident of the first-degree burglary therein charged. Since, as stated, there is no substantial evidence to support the only other way in which first-degree burglary is alleged in count No. 2, namely, that appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon, the verdict of guilty of attempted first-degree burglary is not sustained by the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Every person who, with intent to commit some crime therein, shall enter in the nighttime, the dwelling house of another in which there shall be at the time a human being— (4) Who, while engaged in the nighttime in effecting such entrance, or in committing any crime in such building or in escaping therefrom, shall assault any person; or”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mathers
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.