State v. Barbernell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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. “[O]ur notice jurisprudence requires appellate courts to engage in a two-step analysis when analyzing whether a charging instrument provides adequate notice. First, the reviewing court must identify the elements of the offense. Next, it must consider whether the statutory language is sufficiently descriptive of the charged offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meza v. State · State v. Ross

2. “[t]he offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meza v. State · State v. Ross

3. “The Court reached this conclusion based on its determination that the definitions of “intoxicated” permit the offense of DWI to be proven in two ways, Our reevaluation of this analysis exposes a serious defect in the Court’s reasoning: After identifying the elements óf DWI, the Court neglected to ask whether the definitions of “intoxicated” concern an act or omission so as to create more than one manner and means of committing an offense. Instead, without explanation, the Court decided that the two definitions of “intoxicated” each constitute separate acts or forbidden conduct. In doing so, the Court failed to reconcile this conclusion with its previous statement that the definitions of “intoxicated” involve only matters of proof. Then, expanding on its faulty determination, the Carter Court held that, because the. two types of forbidden conduct involve “fundamentally different natures” and “different behaviors,” a charging instrument must allege the definition of “intoxicated” that the State will seek to prove at trial.”

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