Lane v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““The conspiracy statute, IC 1971, 35-1-111-1, (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-1101 [1956 Repl.]), provides for a penalty of two to fourteen years upon conviction. The burglary statute, IC 1971, 35-13-4-4 (b), (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-701 (b) [1956 Repl.]), provides for a penalty of two to five years following a conviction for second degree burglary. It is appellant’s contention that he cannot receive a greater sentence for conspiring to commit second degree burglary than he would have received for the actual commission of the offense. In support of his position, appellant relies upon Dembowski v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 250 , 240 N.E.2d 815 and Hobbs v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 195 , 252 N.E.2d 498 . In both of those cases, this Court decided that a person cannot receive a penalty for the commission of a lesser included offense which is greater than the penalty he would have received for the commission of the greater offense. The legal reasoning set forth in Dembowski and Hobbs is applicable to the case at bar only if the crime of conspiracy to commit a felony is a lesser included offense of the particular felony in question. It is well established that an offense will be considered a lesser included offense only when it is impossible to commit the greater offense without first having committed the lesser. See, House v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 593 , 117 N.E. 647 ; Watford v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 10 , 143 N.E.2d 405 ; Hobbs v. State, supra. Applying this test to the crime of conspiracy, it m”

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

2. ““In order to be a conspiracy there must be an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understanding^ to bring about 'an intelligent and deliberate- agreement to do the acts and commit the offense, though the agreement is not manifest by any formal words. Concurrence óf sentí ment and co-operative conduct in an unlawful and criminal enterprise are the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy. There must be an agreement and there must be evidence to prove the agreement directly, or such a state of facts that an agreement may be legally inferred. Conspiracies cannot be established by a mere suspicion. Evidence of mere relationship or association between the parties does not show a conspiracy.” (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Ind. App. 258 - Shindler v. State

3. ““It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms to have the unlawful purpose and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performinng one part and another part of the same so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. . . .” 259 Ind. at 473 , 288 N.E.2d at 261 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Ind. App. 22 - Berridge v. State