Goffner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Prior to Boykin, the law in Indiana was stated by the case of Harshman v. State (1953) 232 Ind. 618 , 115 N.E.2d 501 . In reversing and remanding the cause for the withdrawal of a guilty plea, this Court stated in that case: ‘Under our practice an accused may enter a plea of guilty in any case, and thereby waive his constitutional right to trial by jury. But to be valid and binding upon the accused, such a plea must be made by the accused intelligently, advisedly and understandingly, with full knowledge of his rights, and with the considered approval of the judge before whom he stands charged. ‘A valid plea of guilty in court having jurisdiction of the offense is a judicial confession of guilt. Batchelor v. State, 1920, 189 Ind. 69 , 125 N.E. 773 . It admits the incriminating facts alleged. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 424. It should be cautiously received. It should not be accepted from one who does not know, or who, at the time of arraignment, asserts that he does not know, whether or not he has committed the crime charged, for such would be entirely incompatible with the idea of an admission of guilt, and wholly inconsistent with the due administration of justice. ‘. [s]o far as the record before us discloses, no evidence whatever pointing to appellant’s guilt was adduced, either before, during or after the entry of the plea.’ 232 Ind. at 620-21 , 115 N.E.2d at 502 . (emphasis added.) It is clear from these principles that-before accepting a guilty plea the pre-Boy- kin trial”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Neeley v. State · Woods v. State

2. “"It is clear from the foregoing that at the time he entered the plea, appellant was fully advised of his rights and understood the import of the charges as well as the consequences of his plea. Although the charges apparently were not read to him on the date his guilty plea was accepted, we think the series of proceeding and events in toto constitute sufficient evidence to support the finding of the trial court that he was advised of and understood the elements of the crime of second degree murder. The transcripts of the arraignment, the guilty plea proceeding and the pre-sentence report bear out this conclusion."”

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