Potts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 113 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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “11. Appellant’s first enumeration of error in case No. 33259 alleges that the trial court erred in denying his plea of former jeopardy. The appellant contends that, having been convicted of kidnapping with bodily injury of Michael Priest in Cobb County, jeopardy attached to the homicide of Michael Priest, and therefore, appellant’s subsequent conviction in Forsyth County for the murder of Michael Priest constitutes double jeopardy- The Georgia Code distinguishes between two aspects of double jeopardy. “First, there are limitations upon multiple prosecutions arising from the same criminal conduct. Code Ann. § 26-506 entitled, ‘Multiple prosecutions for same conduct’ requires all crimes arising from the same conduct to be prosecuted in a ‘single prosecution’ provided they are in the same jurisdiction and are known to the prosecutor unless the court in the interest of justice orders separate trials. Code Ann. § 26-507 sets out in detail when a second prosecution is barred.” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Estevez, 232 Ga. 316, 318 ( 206 SE2d 475 )' (1974). A prosecution is not barred within the meaning of Code Ann. § 26-507, “if the former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the accused or the crime.” This is the procedural aspect or the bar to multiple prosecutions, intended to prevent an accused from being unduly harassed by or threatened by successive criminal prosecutions. In Georgia “[A]ll criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Potts v. Zant

2. “In Case No. 33259, the jury found as statutory aggravating circumstances to the murder of Michael D. Priest, “(1) armed robbery of Eugene Robert Snyder; (2) the kidnapping of the person of Michael D. Priest resulting in bodily injury to said person; (3) the armed robbery of Michael D. Priest.” Code Ann. § 27-2534.1(b)(2). The evidence in Case No. 33259 supports each of the statutory aggravating circumstances found by the jury. The imposition of two death sentences on the basis of mutually aggravating circumstances cannot be upheld. Gregg, supra. However, where the death sentences are legally and factually supported by additional aggravating circumstances, no violation of Gregg, supra, is present. Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410 ( 216 SE2d 258 ) (1975). In Case No. 33259, without the armed robbery of Michael Priest, which was used to support the death sentence for kidnapping in Case No. 32857, the death sentence for murder is adequately supported by either of .the two remaining statutory aggravating circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Potts v. Zant

3. “(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and (2) Whether, in cases other than treason or aircraft hijacking, the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in section 27-2534.1(b), and (3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”

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