32 Cal. 4th 1048 - People v. Oates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

145 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`A defendant who commits an act of violence ... by a means likely to cause harm to several persons is more culpable than a defendant who harms only one person.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Edwards · 40 Cal. 4th 398 - People v. Calhoun

2. ““In several respects, the language of section 12022.53 supports imposing multiple subdivision (d) enhancements under the circumstances here. First, by its terms, the subdivision (d) enhancement applies to ‘any person’ who, ‘in the commission of’ a specified felony, ‘personally and intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury ... or death, to any person other than an accomplice.’ (Italics added.) Based on the single injury to Barrera, the requirements of a subdivision (d) enhancement are met as to each of defendant’s five attempted murder convictions, including those not involving the attempted murder of Barrera; ... in the commission of each [attempted murder] offense, defendant ‘personally and intentionally discharge[d] a firearm and proximately cause[d] great bodily injury’ to a person ‘other than an accomplice.’ (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) “Notably, the parties here agree that the phrase, ‘any person other than an accomplice,’ does not mean ‘the victim’ of the underlying crime. For example, defendant asserts in his brief that the elements of a subdivision (d) enhancement ‘require the imposition of the enhancement even if the injured person is not a victim of crime, such as if he or she was injured by a stray bullet.’ Thus, ‘[i]f there is a qualifying substantive offense, if a firearm is intentionally discharged, and if anyone (but an accomplice), i.e.,' either the victim or a nearby “non-victim”—a person who is injured but is not the victim of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 Cal. App. 4th 1301 - People v. Weaver

3. “[W]e need not address the People's argument that section 654 generally does not apply to enhancements. We leave that question for another day”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 Cal. App. 4th 14 - People v. Rodriguez