Prophitt v. the State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Moreover, in [] Clemens ... we held that even though the alleged victim was or may have been unaware of the defendant’s inappropriate conduct, that fact did not take the defendant outside of the child’s presence. Instead, we found that the presence element was satisfied because the evidence showed that the defendant was aware of the child’s physical proximity to him and proceeded to engage in the inappropriate conduct either in spite of or because of the child’s presence.’’) (emphasis added) (citing Clemens, 733 S.E.2d at 71 ). 10 .The absence of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Puga-Yanez

2. “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo on appeal. A criminal statute must be construed strictly against criminal liability and, if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the interpretation most favorable to the party facing criminal liability must be adopted.”

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

3. “requires that we read the Code provision in question according to the natural and obvious import of its language.”

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