State v. Edinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It would appear that because the enhancement from class B to class A does not apply unless there has been a prior conviction, proof of the prior conviction is an element of the class A misdemeanor. “Section 39-08-01(2), however, also provides that the court may take judicial notice that ‘such conviction would be the second or subsequent violation’ if the complaint fails to so state. Edinger argues that this permissive language indicates that a prior conviction is not an essential element of the class A misdemeanor. [[Image here]] “Many ... courts reason that because the purpose of a complaint or information is to inform the defendant ‘exactly what he is accused of and [enable him to] prepare his defense/ the prior conviction must be alleged_ [Citation omitted.] Thus, although there is no constitutional requirement that prior offenses be placed in an indictment or information before trial, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), fairness suggests that the defendant be notified so that he can meet the allegation of prior convictions.... [[Image here]] “Rule 7(c), NDRCrimP, comports with this view. An indictment or information must name the defendant and contain a ‘plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.’ Rule 7(c), NDRCrimP. As the explanatory note to Rule 7(c) notes, ‘[t]he purpose of the indictment or information is to inform the defendant of the precise offense of which he is accused”

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

2. “"1. No person shall drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle upon a highway ... if; [[Image here]] “b. He is under the influence of intoxicating liquor; [[Image here]] "2. A person violating any provision of this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor for the first conviction in a twenty-four-month period, and of a class A misdemeanor for the second conviction in a twenty-four-month period. The minimum penalty for such violation shall be either three days in jail or a fine of one hundred dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment. In the event the complaint does not include the allegation that, if convicted, such conviction would be the second or subsequent violation within the time limit as provided in this section, the court may take judicial notice of such fact if indicated by the records of the state highway department or make such finding based on other evidence. [[Image here]]”

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

3. ““You are further instructed that if you do find that the Defendant was previously convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol, or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, nevertheless you may not use the fact that the Defendant was so convicted in determining the guilt or innocence of the Defendant on the present charge.””

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