Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 Ark. 327 - Owens v. State

Owens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
June 1996
most recently cited

19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Brown v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York

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

  1. “There is no merit to this argument. Intent or purpose to commit a crime is a state of mind which is not ordinarily capable of proof by direct evidence, so it must be inferred from the circumstances, (citation omitted). The jury is allowed to draw upon their common knowledge and experience in reaching a verdict from the facts directly proved. Here, there is no evidence that appellants knew any women were in the room; therefore, the jury could have excluded intent to rape. The jury could have also have concluded that if appellants had intended to murder Sealey they would not have paused to demand that he raise his hands. Common knowledge and experience, when considered in the light of the facts of this case, could enable the jury to find that the only purpose appellants could have had in sticking a gun in Sealey’s chest and saying, “Get them up,” was to rob Sealey.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We need not attempt to fathom Owens’ mind to determine whether theft came to him as forethought or an afterthought to his attack on Ms. Moore. He admitted having only a few coins when he entered Ms. Moore’s home and then going promptly to purchase and consume drugs. The proof clearly permitted a finding that Owens took the money, and whether his primary purpose was other than obtaining money, it is enough under the circumstances that the murder and the theft occurred during the same brief interval. The jury could have inferred that theft was a purpose behind his assault, it need not have been the only purpose.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.