29 Md. App. 33 - Shuck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since manslaughter is a ‘catch-all’ concept, covering all homicides which are neither murder nor innocent, it logically includes some killings involving other types of mitigation, and such is the rule of the common law. For example, if one man kills another intentionally, under circumstances beyond the scope of innocent homicide, the facts may come so close to justification or excuse that the killing will be classed as voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. ‘It is not always necessary to show that the killing was done in the heat of passion, to reduce the crime to manslaughter; ’ said the Arkansas court, ‘for, where the killing was done because the slayer believes that he is in great danger, but the facts do not warrant such a belief, it may be murder or manslaughter according to the circumstances, even though there be no passion.’ ” (Emphasis Supplied).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 Md. App. 249 - Cunningham v. State · 29 Md. App. 457 - Law v. State

2. ““In order for a killer to have a ‘perfect’ defense or self-defense to homicide, (1) he must be free from fault in bringing on the difficulty with his adversary; and (2) he must reasonably believe (though he need not correctly believe) both (a) that his adversary will, unless forcibly prevented, immediately inflict upon him a fatal or serious bodily injury, and (b) that he must use deadly force upon the adversary to prevent him from inflicting such an injury. If one who is not the aggressor kills his adversary with these two actual and reasonable beliefs in his mind, his homicide is justified, and he is guilty of no crime — not murder, not manslaughter, but no crime. What if a defendant who did not initiate the difficulty honestly but unreasonably believes either that he is in danger of the injury or that killing is the only way to prevent it; or, even though he reasonably believes these things, he was at fault in bringing about the difficulty? He cannot have the defense of self-defense, for that requires both freedom from fault in the inception of the difficulty and the entertainment of beliefs which are reasonable. But is murder the only alternative? Or should the matter fall into the category of manslaughter, consisting of those homicides which lie in between murder and no crime. Some cases so hold, whether the reason for the ‘imperfection’ of the defense is the defendant’s own fault in bringing on the difficulty or the unreasonableness of the honest but erroneous beliefs w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Md. App. 457 - Law v. State

3. “Even granting that the appellant and his companion were mere victims ... the brawl or scuffle which was taking place was non-deadly in character____ The appellant and his companion were good-sized and healthy men who were by no means outclassed physically. There had been several blows struck with fists and the appellant’s companion had been wrestled to the ground,. It was at this point that the appellant himself escalated the combat to the deadly level by ... taking out a baseball bat and introducing that weapon into the fray.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Md. App. 83 - Lambert v. State