Jacks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 77 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"You are instructed that where a specific intent is required to make an act an offense, such as in the charge preferred against the Defendant, the State is not required to make proof of specific intent by direct evidence, for purpose and intent are subjective facts. That is, they exist within the mind of man, and since you cannot delve into a person's mind and determine his purpose and intent, you may look to all the surrounding circumstances, including what was said and done in relation thereto. The State is only required to produce such evidence as will satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged was committed by the defendant with the degree of culpability charged in the Information. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts, unless the circumstances are such to indicate the absence of such intent. A determination of the Defendant's intent may be arrived at by the jury from a consideration of the Defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points. When an unlawful act, however, is proved to be knowingly done, no further proof is needed on the part of the State in the absence of justifying or excusing facts, since the law presumes a criminal intent from an unlawful act knowingly done."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ludy v. State · Van Orden v. State

2. ““Evidence, though illegally obtained, may nevertheless be used for impeachment purposes. Walder v. United States, (1954) 347 U.S. 62 , 74 S.Ct. 354 , 98 L.Ed. 503 ; Jacks v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 166 ; Johnson v. State, (1976) 258 Ind. 683 , 284 N.E.2d 517 . ‘It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction [of] his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks [v. U. S., 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 ] doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.’ Walder v. United States, supra, at 65, 74 S.Ct. at 356 , 98 L.Ed. at 507 .””

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

3. “Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial ... if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nash v. Byrd