England v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Pullins v. State (1970), State v. Marahrens (1977)
29 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 Bryant v. State · Fletcher v. State · TEMPLE v. State · Brown v. State · McCutcheon v. State
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘. . . The intent to defraud may be presumed from the general conduct of the defendant; and if the necessary consequences of the previous acts be to defraud some particular person, the jury may convict, notwithstanding that the person states his belief on oath that the prisoner did not intend to defraud him. Roscoe Crim. Ev. 561; Regina v. Hill, 8 C. & P. 274.’ See also Brown v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 227 , 111 N.E.2d 808 . “We conclude the offering of the check to the teller with no instructions, when this act is generally construed in the banking industry as a request to exchange said check for cash, is sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is a well-established principle of criminal law that evidence of guilt found upon a person under legal arrest for a crime may be used in evidence against him. Whatever is found upon his person or in his possession which was a part of the means by which he accomplished the crime, whether an instrument, device, or token, is legitimate evidence for the prosécution and may be taken from him and used for that purpose . . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Marahrens
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.