Campbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A criminal conspiracy consists of the combination of two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is an unlawful agreement. The agreement need not be formal or spoken, provided there is a meeting of the minds reflecting a unity of purpose and design. In Maryland, the crime is complete when the unlawful agreement is reached, and no overt act in furtherance of the agreement need be shown."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State · Kohler v. State

2. ““The paraphernalia counts, charging possession of ‘numerous smoking pipes, adapted for administration of controlled dangerous substance under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use for purpose of illegally administering controlled dangerous substance ...,’ were brought pursuant to Article 27, § 287(d). Although the petitioner does not raise the issue, it is quite obvious that § 287(d) does not apply and, so, as to the count of which he was convicted, the petitioner received an illegal sentence. Illegal sentences may be challenged at any time, even on appeal. Rule 4-345(a); Matthews v. State, 304 Md. 281, 288 , 498 A.2d 655, 658 (1985), citing to Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 427 , 488 A.2d 949, 951 (1985). “Section 287(d)(1) defines ‘controlled paraphernalia’ as it pertains to its use, rather than its packaging (see subsection (d)(2)) or its preparation (see subsection (d)(3)), as ‘[a] hypodermic syringe, needle or other instrument or implement or combination thereof adapted for the administration of controlled dangerous substances by hypodermic injections .... ’ The ‘numerous smoking pipes’ referred to in the paraphernalia counts simply do not come within that definition. The petitioner should have been charged under Article 27, § 287A(a), which defines ‘drug paraphernalia’ as: ‘all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use, in ... ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 368 - Rainey v. State · Moosavi v. State

3. “The charge, conspiracy “to violate the controlled dangerous substances law of the State of Maryland,” sufficiently characterizes the crime of conspiracy so as to invest the circuit court with jurisdiction. Sections 276-304 of Article 27 are codified under the subheading, “Health-Controlled Dangerous Substances.... ” That the subheading applies to numerous substances, having legitimate and illegitimate uses, and prohibits numerous acts when done in connection with those substances, cannot be doubted, but all those substances and prohibited acts (including the definitions critical to the proper understanding and interpretation of the subheading) are grouped together in one place for easy reference. Moreover, they share, as we have seen, a, common element: their abuse is inimical to the health and welfare of the citizenry. Thus, though numerous, the substances, and the proscribed acts pertaining to them, comprise, not an unlimited range of possibilities, but only a finite one.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 181 Md. App. 426 - Rudder v. State