Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 MD 475 - State v. Albrecht

State v. Albrecht’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

304
cited by 304 later decisions
3
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 10 district · 290 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 304 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Smith (2003), Henry v. Purnell (2011)

4 federal appellate · 10 district · 290 state decisions

12701994200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Kramer · 97 Md. App. 630 - Albrecht v. State

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

  1. “[Gjuilt under the statute does not depend upon whether the accused intended that his reckless conduct create a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another. The test is whether the appellant’s misconduct, viewed objectively, was so reckless as to constitute a gross departure from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe, and thereby create the substantial risk that the statute was designed to punish.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““It is well settled in this State that where a charge of involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligently doing some act lawful in itself, the negligence necessary to support a conviction must be gross or criminal, viz., such as manifests a wanton or reckless disregard of human life. A causal connection between such gross negligence and death must exist to support a conviction, although it is not essential that the ultimate harm which resulted was foreseen or intended. On the other hand whether an accused’s conduct constituted gross negligence must be determined by the conduct itself and not by the resultant harm. Nor can criminal liability be predicated on every careless act merely because its carelessness results in injury to another.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “When Officer Albrecht and Officer Thomas took off in pursuit of those suspects, they had been told that the two or three males in the group were drug dealers and that the group might be carrying guns---- In approaching a felony stop rife with that potential, that fear is not dissipated until the scene is neutralized and the hands of all suspects have been observed. The arresting officers “get the drop on” the suspects first and only lower their weapons after they are reassured that the suspects pose no danger. When Officer Albrecht saw no weapons in the hands of Rebecca Garnett, he “checked her off’ in his mind and was about to direct his attention to Darnell Budd and James Littlejohn when his shotgun accidentally discharged. The larger danger had not yet dissipated. Both Officer Albrecht and Officer Thomas were concerned about the hands of Darnell Budd. Officer Albrecht described Budd as “manipulating” his shirt and preventing Officer Albrecht from getting an unimpeded view of Budd’s hands. Viewing events, as we must, from the perspective of the officers on the scene, Darnell Budd cannot, as of the moment of the encounter, be lightly dismissed as “not the most fearsome type.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.