25 Or. App. 785 - State v. Mancuso’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Whether two offenses are based upon the same criminal episode or whether they arise out of the same act or transaction is, at best, a difficult issue to decide — for prosecutors, for trial courts and for appellate courts. The facts of specific cases rarely fit neatly into the general statutory and judicial tests * * *. This case presents a typically close question. It would not be here on appeal, however, if the prosecutor had followed the procedure which we outlined in State v. Bishop, 16 Or. App. 310 , 518 P.2d 177 (1974). There we suggested: "`* * * [P]rosecutors [should] obtain separate indictments and then make a timely pretrial motion to consolidate the charges for trial. Such a device would require a defendant to make an election as to whether he wants a single trial or separate trials. Such an election would usually either constitute a waiver of Brown rights to a single trial, or waiver of Fitzgerald rights to separate trials.' 16 Or. App. at 314 , 518 P.2d at 179 . "* * * "Since the state did not avail itself of the recommended procedure to avoid placing defendant in double jeopardy, we construe the `criminal episode' tests in favor of the defendant in this admittedly close case." 25 Or. App. at 788, 790 , 551 P.2d at 111 .”

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

2. “"No person shall be separately prosecuted for two or more offenses based upon the same criminal episode, if the several offenses are reasonably known to the appropriate prosecutor at the time of commencement of the first prosecution and establish proper venue in a single court."”

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