25 Md. App. 338 - Williamson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 30 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'It is, of course, generally true that the reputation of the deceased cannot be shown by evidence of specific acts. However, where there is testimony tending to support the theory of self-defense, the presence of such testimony entitles the defendant to the benefit of certain rules of evidence which would not otherwise be available. It is competent for him to prove his knowledge of facts which would have a reasonable tendency to justify his asserted belief as to the existence of a deadly purpose in the overt acts of the deceased. ... On the issue whether or not the accused had reasonable grounds to believe himself in imminent danger, he may show his knowledge of specifíc instances of violence on the part of the deceased. Previous acts of violence by the deceased, especially if committed recently, known to the defendant, might have an even stronger influence on his mind than would be produced by knowledge of the reputation of the deceased for violence.’ Jones v. State, 182 Md. 653, 659 ; Accord, Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 410 ; Barger v. State, 2 Md. App. 565, 568-569 , cert. denied, 249 Md. 731 . [Emphasis supplied].” 25 Md. App. at 343-344 , 333 A.2d at 656 .”

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

2. “Appellant acknowledges that the majority of jurisdictions permit reconsideration of the grant of a motion for new trial, 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1510, 58 Am.Jur.2d, New Trial, § 217, but argues that the Maryland rule should be that once the motion is granted, reconsideration is prohibited. Although there may be situations where reconsideration of the grant or denial of a new trial is arguably inappropriate, the present case is clearly not such a situation. Sentencing had not taken place, thus judgment had not been entered. Id. at 348, 333 A.2d 653 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 65 Md. App. 303 - Christian v. State

3. ““The term ‘relevance’ refers to the required relationship between the evidence offered and the fact it is offered to prove____ Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make existence of a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Md. App. 747 - Green v. State