Scruggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““MOTION TO CORRECT ERRORS The defendant, George Donald Angel, moves the Court for the correction of errors occurring prior to and during the trial of the within cause as follows: 1. The verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence upon all necessary elements of the offense for which the defendant was convicted and is contrary to the evidence. 2. The verdict of the j ury is contrary to law. * * * 3. Uncorrected error of law occurring and properly raised in the trial of the proceedings, in this, to-wit: The Court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for a mistrial, and the defendant was denied a fair trial by reason that the mention of a ‘mug shot’ unduly prejudiced the defendant. * * * [questions, objections, remarks and answers omitted] 4. Uncorrected error of law occurring and properly raised in the trial of the proceedings, in this, to-wit: The Court erred in refusing to give to the jury at the request of the defendant, defendant’s instruction number one (1) which was tendered and requested by the defendant, and is in the words and figures as follows: ‘INSTRUCTION NO. 1 The Court instructs you that a person commits Theft when he knowingly: “* * Obtains by deception control over property of the owner or a signature to any written instrument. * *” ’ 5. Uncorrected error of law occurring and properly raised in the trial of the proceedings, in this, to wit: The Court erred in refusing to give to the jury at the request of the defendant, defendant’s instruction ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 155 Ind. App. 242 - Angel v. State

2. ““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.” See also: Scruggs v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 249 , 247 N. E. 2d 213 , wherein the above language was quoted with approval.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 Ind. App. 590 - McHaney v. State