306 Ga. App. 495 - State v. Corhen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f an accused would be guilty of the crime charged if the facts as alleged in the indictment are taken as true, then the indictment is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer; however, if an accused can admit to all of the facts charged in the indictment and still be innocent of a crime, the indictment is insufficient and is subject to a general demurrer.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. The State v. Harlacher · 306 Ga. App. 878 - State v. Ramirez-Herrara

2. “[W]hen determining whether an indictment is sufficient to withstand a special demurrer, the applicable standard is not whether the indictment could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.... When presented with a special demurrer, the court should examine the indictment from the perspective that the accused is innocent, for this is what the law presumes. Nevertheless, the language of an indictment is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the State, while the accused’s objections to the indictment, as presented in a special demurrer, are strictly construed against the accused.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 Ga. App. 170 - McGLYNN v. THE STATE · 333 Ga. App. 523 - Palatini v. the State

3. “challenging the sufficiency of the charges of impeding a court officer and requesting that the indictment be quashed. The trial court granted Cerajewski's special demurrer and quashed the entire indictment. 1. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the special demurrer as to counts two, three, and four of the indictment. We do not agree. An accused may challenge an indictment by general or special demurrer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 347 Ga. App. 454 - State v. Steven Cerajewski