29 Md. App. 560 - Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably Newton v. State (1977), 160 W. Va. 314 - State Ex Rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver (1977)
28 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Harrington v. California
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Initially, we remind appellant that while the statutory rule in § 410 speaks of all ‘murder’ committed in the perpetration of a felony as being murder in the first degree, the common law felony-murder rule is that homicide, a killing, resulting from the perpetration (or attempted perpetration) of a felony is murder. Perkins on Criminal Law, Ch. 2 at 37, et seq. (2nd ed.). The enactment of the statute did not abrogate the common law rule but supplemented it by graduating the punishment according to the circumstances of the crime: “ ‘At common law, a killing in the perpetration of a robbery was murder, regardless of intent. See Clark and Marshall, Crimes (4th ed.), sec. 245. As used in the statute, the ‘common law sense is left unimpaired; the measure of punishment only is sought to be graduated according to the circumstances under which it was committed.’ Davis v. State, supra [ 39 Md. 355, 374 ].’ Stansbury v. State, 218 Md. 255, 260 , 146 A.2d 17, 20 .” [Emphasis in original] [ 29 Md. App. at 565-66 , 350 A.2d at 177-78 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““That reasoning was equally applicable to the common law felony-murder rule which requires no intent to kill or injure. “ ‘Even without an intent to kill or injure, or an act done in wanton and wilful disregard of the obvious likelihood of causing such harm, homicide is murder if it falls within the scope of the felony-murder rule. The robber who kills the one he is attempting to rob is guilty of murder whether he intended any personal harm or not.’ Perkins on Criminal Law, Ch. 2 at 37 (2nd ed.).” [ 29 Md. App. at 568 , 350 A.2d at 179 ]”
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.