State v. Lotter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 152 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT (Judge Finn): With regard to [Nissen’s] Motion to Quash, I had a conversation last night with [Nis-sen’s counsel] and defense counsel.... Or prosecution, yes. Excuse me. Now, I’m gonna let them explain to you what’s goin’ — what the nature of that was, because I think you’re entitled to know, in view of your Motion [in Limine]. Okay. [PROSECUTION]: Uh — we’re negotiating an agreement that would have him testify in this matter; it’s not been finalized. THE COURT: It has not been finalized? [PROSECUTION]: No. Oh, yeah, that’s right. The — and [Nissen’s counsel], I think, agreed to continue his Motion to Quash until such time as Nissen would be called, I think that’s the extent of it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lotter v. Houston · State v. Lotter

2. ““Prior to the finalizing of any agreement, the State will be party to a meeting between attorneys and [the trial judge] wherein the State will inform the judge of no need for the convening of a three judge panel or the preparation of a presentencing report that may contain evidence of aggravating circumstances....””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lotter v. Houston · State v. Lotter

3. “To be guilty of the crime charged, it is not necessary that the State prove that the defendant himself committed the unlawful act or acts in question. Whoever aids, abets, or procures another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful act or acts in question were committed by another person who was: 1. Engaged by the defendant to commit the unlawful act or acts; or 2. Engaged with the defendant in a common, concerted, unlawful act or acts; or 3. Incited or encouraged by the defendant to commit the unlawful act or acts, then the defendant is as guilty as if he himself committed the unlawful act or acts, and it is your duty to find the defendant guilty. Aiding and abetting involves some participation in the criminal act and must be evidenced by some word, act, or deed. No particular acts are necessary; nor is it necessary that any physical part in the commission of the crime is taken or that there was an express agreement therefor. Mere encouragement or assistance is sufficient. On the other hand, evidence of mere presence, acquiescence, or silence is not enough to sustain the State’s burden of proving the defendant guilty.”

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