Poe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Petitioner tries to unduly stretch our holding in Ford that the doctrine of transferred intent is inapplicable to attempted murder. We reject Poe’s argument that because he completed the crime of attempted murder of his intended victim, the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to the death of another person. In Ford , we made clear that if a defendant intends to kill a specific victim and instead wounds an unintended victim without killing either, the defendant can be convicted only of the attempted murder of the intended victim and transferred intent does not apply. ... This is not true where, as in the case sub jud;ice, the defendant intends to murder one victim and instead kills an unintended victim. Here, transferred intent applies because there is a death and the doctrine is necessary to impose criminal liability for the murder of the unintended victim in addition to the attempted murder of the intended victim.... In Ford , this Court asserted that the doctrine is used when the defendant fails to commit the crime intended upon the targeted victim and completes it upon another.... Thus, the doctrine should be applied to the instant case.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. State · State v. Brady

2. ““The defendant fails to recognize ... that his intent was to murder, not to attempt to murder. Since Mr. Poe killed Kimberly, his intent to murder was ‘transferred’ from Ms. Poe to Kimberly. We agree with the State that the passing of the bullet through the arm of the intended victim before killing the unintended victim does not alter or negate the application of the doctrine of transferred intent. A fortiori, this is a classic case of transferred intent.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. State · State v. Brady

3. ““ ‘only three grounds for appellate review of sentences are recognized in this State: (1) whether the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or violates other constitutional requirements; (2) whether the sentencing judge was motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations; and (3) whether the sentence is within statutory limits.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State · 218 Md. App. 472 - Bishop v. State