Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is defendant’s contention that it is mere guesswork as to whether the defendant intended to kill, injure, rape, rob or kidnap Mrs. Pigg. In [State v.] Lindsey, [ 202 Miss. 896 , 32 So.2d 876 (1947)] the Court used language that'might be construed as holding that unless the overt act charged in the indictment relates exclusively to the crime charged, the indictment 1s insufficient. We are of the opinion that Lindsey is distinguishable from the instant case in that the overt act of physically grabbing Mrs. Pigg and forcing her to the cash register manifestly relates to robbery and not to rape, intent to kill, or intent to kidnap. Moreover, Lindsey could not rationally be construed as laying down a rule that the overt act must relate exclusively to the crime named in the indictment. A great many attempts to commit crimes involve overt acts that could relate to more than one crime. For instance, every armed robbery involves an assault. In the instant case, there was an assault and battery committed upon Mrs. Pigg. Where the overt act charged is manifestly adapted to effectuate the offense, the overt act is sufficiently charged. State v. Burton, 145 Miss. 821 , 111 So. 300 (1927). We are of the opinion that the overt act charged was manifestly adapted to effectuate the purpose of robbing Mrs. Pigg. [ 329 So.2d at 526 ],”

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