27 Md. App. 460 - Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2003
2 district · 10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Reynolds v. Sims · Green v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As construed by these two cases, the effect of probation without verdict is the conditional suspension of both the State’s right to prosecute and the various protections afforded an accused prior to trial, e. g., the presumption of innocence. This statutory hybrid provides a second chance for an accused to avoid the stigma of conviction. State v. Jacob, 234 Md. 452, 455 , 199 A.2d 803 . Bartlett [v. State, 15 Md.App. 234 , 289 A.2d 843 ] and Duppins [v. State, 17 Md. App. 464 , 302 A.2d 717 ], both supra, point out the contradiction of imposing a sentence “without finding a verdict.” The Legislature has authorized the imposition of restitution by a court in such cases, C. 795, Acts of 1974, but awaited the 1975 session to meet the problem of what to do with respect to the original offense in the event of violation of the conditions of probation. Perhaps to preclude an errant probationer from simultaneously violating his probation and re-donning the cloak of presumed innocence (not to mention the necessity of the State re-shouldering the heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, made heavier by passage of time) the Legislature recently eliminated the de novo trial upon violation of probation. The Legislative remedy so drastically changed the concept of Sec. 641 as to virtually eliminate probation without verdict in the orthodox sense. C. 527, Acts of 1975. We are, however, not concerned with the revised version, being restricted to the effect of See. 641 as it appeared ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Consequently, appellant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment should have been granted as to the Seventh and Eighth Counts of the Montgomery County Indictment for receiving the same stolen goods for which he had been once placed in jeopardy in Prince George’s County. It follows logically that the Fifth and Sixth Counts charging larceny of the same items should also have been dismissed since one may not be convicted of stealing that which he has been determined to have received. Bell v. State, 220 Md. 75 ; Heinze v. State, 184 Md. 613, 617 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court will accept the recommendation of the State Mr. Stevens, therefore, we will enter a finding of probation before verdict, place you on 12 months unsupervised probation. Any difficulties in ■ the 12 months Mr. Stevens and you’re brought back and I — find you guilty. Do you understand what I’m saying?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.