State v. Thai Do Hoang’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 28 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n felony-murder cases, the elements of malice, deliberation, and premeditation which are required for murder in the first degree are deemed to be supplied by felonious conduct alone if a homicide results. To support a conviction of felony murder, all that is required is to prove that a felony inherently dangerous to human life was being committed and that the homicide which followed was a direct result of the commission of that felony.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wesson · – State v. Patterson –

2. ““In felony-murder cases, the elements of malice, deliberation, and premeditation which are required for murder in the first degree are deemed to be supplied by felonious conduct alone if a homicide results. To support a conviction for felony murder, all that is required is to prove that a felony was being committed, which felony was inherently dangerous to human life, and that the homicide which followed was a direct result of the commission of that felony. In a felony-murder case, evidence of who the triggerman is is irrelevant and all participants are principals. [Citations omitted.] “The puipose of the felony-murder doctrine is to deter all those engaged in felonies from killing negligently or accidentally. . . . “It is argued in the case before us that felony murder applies only to the deaths of Innocents’ rather than co-felons. There is nothing in our statute on which to base such a distinction. . . . “Dung and Thuong, the decedents herein, were human beings who were killed in the perpetration of a felony. . . . Defendant was an active participant in die felony and present on the scene during all pertinent times. There is nothing in the statute excluding the killing of the co-felons herein from, its application. For this court to exclude the co-felons would constitute judicial amendment of a statute on philosophic rather than legal grounds. This would be highly improper. The legislature has defined felony murder. If this definition is to be amended to exclude the killing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sophophone

3. ““In 1969, the Kansas Legislature adopted the new criminal code, replacing K.S.A. 21-401 (Conick) with K.S.A. 21-3401. L.1969, ch. 180, § 21-3401. In so doing, the revised statute eliminated the enumeration of felonies which specifically gave rise to the application of the felony-murder doctrine. In 1972, K.S.A. 21-3401 was amended to its present form which provides that murder in the first degree is ‘the killing of a human being ... in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any felony.’ L. 1972, ch. 112, § 1.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mitchell