State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Maryland, criminal attempt requires a specific intent to commit the crime attempted. The Court of Special Appeals interpreted this requirement to mean that the crime of attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill the victim named in the indictment. We disagree. To be sure, attempted murder is a specific intent crime. However, the intent required is merely the intent to kill someone. ❖ * * “[I]t is clear that the only difference between the crime of attempted murder and completed first degree (specific intent to kill) murder is that in the former the victim survived whereas in the latter the victim died. Moreover, the criminal conduct required to constitute an attempt to commit murder must be defined in terms of the conduct required to constitute the completed crime. In other words, a defendant such as Wilson, in order to be guilty of an attempted first degree (premeditated) murder, must harbor the same mens rea as that required for a completed murder. “Murder is homicide committed with malice aforethought. Gladden, supra, 273 Md. at 403 , 330 A.2d at 187 . In Wilson’s case, the State proved the malice element by establishing Wilson’s specific intent to kill Marvin Brown. Therefore, since under our decision in Gladden[,] Wilson would have been guilty of premeditated murder had the unintended victim ... died, the elements of attempted murder were satisfied when [the victim] survived.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brady

2. “"Consequently, the doctrine's applicability, as recognized by this Court in Gladden , extends to all situations where a defendant's intended act (which in all other respects constitutes a crime) `affects' or `inflicts harm upon' an unintended victim. Moreover .. . the doctrine's applicability is not limited to only general intent crimes. In fact, the very crime to which the doctrine was applied in Gladden was first degree premeditated murder, unquestionably a specific intent crime."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 90 Md. App. 673 - Ford v. State

3. “if one intends injury to the person of another under circumstances in which such a mental element constitutes mens rea, and in the effort to accomplish this end he inflicts harm upon a person other than the one intended, he is guilty of the same kind of crime as if his aim had been more accurate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. State