Combs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “[Wjhere there [have] been two separate judicial determinations on the merits of the respective cases, and where they are contradictory, the law will impose a consistency to their findings.” Combs v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 294 , [301,] 295 N.E.2d 366 , [370].’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schmidt v. State · Jewell v. State

2. ““This is not to hold, however, that the appellant here should prevail in his contention that his conviction must be made consistent with his principal’s. [T]he principal in this case was not acquitted of any wrongdoing, or found guilty of some lesser offense, after a trial on the merits, but rather entered a plea of guilty to a charge of malicious trespass. We believe that in the area of mandated consistency between principal’s conviction and accessory’s conviction there is a recognizable and legitimate difference between the assumptions which may arise from an acquittal or a finding of guilt on a lesser charge after a trial on a greater, and the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court. Although a guilty plea is recognized as a conviction it has certain aspects to it which make it fundamentally different from the usual process when an accused is convicted. [Therefore, . . . although courts have recognized a necessity for consistency in certain situations in this area, they have done so because of certain assumptions implicit in a finding by a court after a trial on the merits. However, these same assumptions do not arise, nor are the same forces at work, upon an entrance of a guilty plea. When the principal is found guilty after a trial on the merits of a lesser offense than the one originally charged, an assumption may be made that the State failed to adequately carry its burden on the principal’s greater offense . . . On the other hand in the situation where a plea to a l”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McKnight v. State · Jewell v. State

3. “in the situation where a plea to a lesser offense is accepted by a court it cannot be presumed to be a finding of an acquittal of the greater because of the special nature of the plea bargain that often times underlies it.”

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