34 Md. App. 331 - Gooch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The distinction to be made between the several counts may be found in the testimony of the accused: in the rape and handgun charges, he denied the commission of these crimes; in the perverted practice charge, he made what amounted to a judicial confession. Section 554, of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.) makes it a violation of the criminal law of Maryland to place one’s sexual organ in the mouth of any other person. It is immaterial whether the act is a voluntary or involuntary one. See, Hughes v. State, 14 Md.App. 497 , 287 A.2d 299 (1972). The accused in his own defense testified that the prosecutrix had taken his penis into her mouth. The statement of the accused voluntarily made in open court without any compulsion, threats, promises or other vitiating factor was a binding admission that he had violated the above criminal statute. See, Brumit v. Florida, 220 So.2d 659 (Fla.App., 1969); State v. Snell, 177 Neb. 396 , 128 N.W. 2d 823 (1964); McCormick, Evidence, Sec. 160 (1972).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 75 Md. App. 314 - Schochet v. State

2. “We hasten to add that we do not accept or reject as a correct statement of the law the instruction so vigorously argued by appellant in his brief. Our very careful reading of the record indicates that the precise instruction argued in the brief was never offered before the trial court. Without ruling on its validity, we express our doubts as to whether the excision of one sentence from a previously approved complete charge and its inclusion as a part of a general proposed instruction in a textbook is sufficient authority to require its acceptance as an appropriate advisory jury instruction. It is the duty of the trial court to make the initial decision as to the form and content of the advisory instruction and where the request for instruction is technically erroneous, to include a correct instruction in the court’s charge. Noel v. State, [ 202 Md. 247 ] at 252 [ 96 A.2d 7 ]; Colbert v. United States, 146 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1944). (Footnotes omitted, emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 80 Md. App. 405 - Clark v. State

3. ““[T]he accused, having introduced evidence of good character, was entitled to an instruction as to the weight and effect to be given to that evidence. We held [in Braxton v. State, 11 Md.App. 435 , 274 A.2d 647 (1971) ] that the jury should have been instructed that the character evidence should be taken into consideration by them in conjunction with all the other evidence in the case and, in arriving at their verdict of guilt or innocence, given such weight under all the facts and circumstances of the case—including the credibility, as determined by the jury, of the character witnesses themselves—as they may de- . termine this evidence merits.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 76 Md. App. 507 - Pearlstein v. State