State v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 17 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"ORS 161.405 codifies the Model Penal Code's `substantial step' test for distinguishing acts of preparation from an attempt. `In § 5.01(2), the Model Penal Code states that to be a substantial step the act must be "strongly corrobative of the actor's criminal purpose[,]"' Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971, § 54, at 49, i.e., defendant's conduct must (1) advance the criminal purpose charged and (2) provide some verification of the existence of that purpose. Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Official Draft and Revised Comments), American Law Institute 352, § 5.01 (1985). We note that the Model Penal Code specifies a number of situations that `shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law' if they are strongly corrobative of the actor's criminal purpose. One of those situations is enticement. Id., § 5.01(2)(b), at 296 (`enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission'). See Commentary to the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971, § 54, at 49 (same principle stated). "Applying the statutory standard to the facts of the present case, we conclude that defendant's persistent efforts to entice the intended victim into his truck, his following the girl, and his statements to the police officer and to the girl's mother strongly corroborate his criminal purpose to kidnap, rape, and sodomize the 13-year-old girl.9 We hold, therefore, that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find beyond a re”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Or. App. 355 - State v. Rinkin · State v. Kimbrough

2. “[T]he same conduct may constitute a substantial step toward the commission of more than one charged crime, as long as that conduct strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose underlying each charged crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 345 - State v. Galloway · 141 Or. App. 355 - State v. Rinkin

3. “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Or. App. 355 - State v. Rinkin · State v. Kimbrough