Finch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 100 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to amend its information after the trial had started in order to permit the imposition of more severe punishment on him. Proper amendments of informations have been permitted under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1024 (Repl. 1964) after the jury has been sworn but before the case has been submitted to it, so long as the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the crime charged, if the accused is not surprised. Washington v. State, 248 Ark. 318 , 451 S.W. 2d 449 ; Underwood v. State, 205 Ark. 864 , 171 S.W. 2d 304 ; Johnson v. State, 197 Ark. 1016 , 126 S.W. 2d 289 ; Ingle v. State, 211 Ark. 39 , 198 S.W. 2d 996 . See also, Ridgeway v. State, 251 Ark. 157 , 472 S.W. 2d 108 . This amendment did not change either the nature or the degree of the crime. Nor does our habitual criminal act. See McIlwain v. State, 226 Ark. 818 , 294 S.W. 2d 350 ; Osborne v. State, 237 Ark. 170 , 371 S.W. 2d 518 . It simply authorizes a more severe punishment. Higgins v. State, 235 Ark. 153 , 357 S.W. 2d 499 . It does not create a distinct additional offense or independent crime but simply affords evidence to increase the punishmen t and to furnish a guide for the court or j ury in fixing the final punishment in event of conviction of the offense charged. See Commentary, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001, Arkansas Criminal Code; Hathorne v. State, 459 S.W. 2d 826 (Tex. Cr. App., 1970), cert. den. 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1398 , 28 L. Ed. 2d 65”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. State · Crafton v. State

2. “Whenever the state seeks to charge one as a previous offender or habitual criminal in order to warrant the imposition of additional punishment for the offense charged, the previous offense is an essential element in the punishment, which must be alleged in the indictment or information.”

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

3. “The purpose of this requirement is to afford appellant notice of essential elements upon which the state relies for assessment of punishment and to give him the opportunity to refute such assertions.”

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