Hoffert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Nails v. S & R, INC. (1994), Southern Management Corp. v. Taha (2003)
46 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 Gunn v. United States · MacK v. State · 6 Cal. 3d 55 - People v. Compton · Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir · Wright v. State
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[The trial judge] was encouraged to travel the primrose path by the prosecutor. What both the judge and the prosecutor overlooked was the effect of the not guilty verdicts on the viability of the trial. “When the jury was polled on the verdicts of not guilty on the first three charges, see Md.Rule 4-327(e), and the poll disclosed that the verdicts were unanimous, the verdicts were final. Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158, 164-170 , 472 A.2d 988 (1984); Pugh v. State, 271 Md. 701, 705 , 319 A.2d 542 (1974). The verdicts were legally proper. They were not contrary to the law and, without more, were in full accord with the judge’s instructions which properly reflected the law. Nor were they ‘ambiguous, inconsistent, unresponsive, or otherwise defective.’ See Smith [299 Md.] at 170, 472 A.2d 988 . The verdicts stood complete without a verdict on the handgun charge. The guilt stage of the trial was over at that point. The jury had no further function to perform .... In the circumstances, the State was not entitled to a verdict on the handgun charge. It follows that the judge erred in permitting the jury to return a verdict on the fourth count.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Cjonvictions based on inconsistent jury verdicts are tolerated because of the singular role of the jury in the criminal justice system.... The general view is that inconsistencies may be the product of lenity, mistake, or a compromise to reach unanimity, and that continual correction of such matters would undermine the historic role of the jury as the arbiter of questions put to it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Even if, as the majority concludes, the verdicts on the attempted murder and robbery counts were final, the conviction on the handgun count should still be affirmed. The jury had not yet announced its verdict on one of the counts submitted to it. Until the jury has left the courtroom and dispersed, the judge should be able to allow them to complete their verdict. Wharton’s Criminal Procedure states: The mere announcement of the discharge of the jurors does not preclude recalling them if they have not yet dispersed and mingled with the bystanders. Although the decisions are not uniform, it has often been held that, when the jurors have rendered their verdict and have been discharged, but have not yet left the courtroom or the courthouse, the trial judge may recall the order of discharge and reassemble the jurors to amend their verdict as to a matter of form or, in some cases, substance. 4 C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, 12th Ed. § 578, at 141 (1976).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Teixeira v. State · Givens v. State
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.