Jupiter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There are strong public policy reasons why self-help, involving the use of force against a person, should not be condoned. For that reason most courts have tended to apply claim of right strictly under those circumstances. Courts have held that the defense does not apply unless the defendant was attempting to retrieve a specific chattel that was the subject of a prior claim of right; the defendant may not attempt to take money or property of equivalent value. [ Jupiter v. State, 328 Md. 635 , 616 A. 2d 412 , 417 (1992) (citing Thomas v. State, 584 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cause dismissed, 587 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1991); State v. Brighter, 62 Haw. 25 , 608 P. 2d 855, 859 (1980); People v. Reid, 69 N.Y. 2d 469, 515 N.Y.S. 2d 750, 752-53 , 508 N.E. 2d 661, 664 (1987); State v. Winston, 170 W. Va. 555 , 295 S.E. 2d 46, 51 (1982); Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105 , 181 N.W. 2d 383, 387-88 (1970).]”

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

2. “Robbery is a common law crime in Maryland. West, 312 Md. at 202 , 539 A.2d at 233 . For that reason we shall apply common law claim of right principles in our discussion below, as opposed to the statutory version of claim of right in the consolidated theft statute, Md.Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 343(c). Jupiter, arguing within the reported facts of The Fisherman’s Case, contends that those who force merchants of goods to sell their goods do not commit robbery because the merchants have been forced only to do what the merchants held themselves out as willing to do. The argument appears to be that Jupiter did not have the mens rea for robbery because he had a good faith claim of right to acquire the goods by paying for them; i.e., he relied upon the “supposed consent” of the seller to yield the goods upon tender of the full price. See Model Penal Code § 223.1 commentary at 157 (1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Md. App. 510 - Martin v. State

3. “[T]he value requirement is rarely an issue and it is difficult to hypothesize an illustration of when it might be an issue. If, for instance, a person asks another for the time of day, and the other refuses, but the person who inquired learns the time by glancing at the other’s watch, the one who looked at the watch has not committed theft because that person did not take property of value. If an accused held a gun to a victim’s head to force the victim to divulge the time, arguably the accused did not commit robbery, for the same reason. Decisions in analogous cases show that there is no requirement that the defendant deprive the victim of value; the requirement is simply that the defendant deprive the victim of possession of property of value.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 Md. App. 1 - Williams v. State