Dedo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Deville v. State (2004), State v. Rauch (2000)
50 state decisions
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 Maus v. State · 115 Wis. 2d 371 - State v. Gilbert · 207 N.J. Super. 126 - State v. Reyes · Johnson v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary · State v. Babcock
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case, the restraints placed upon Dedo while in home detention clearly were sufficiently incarcerative to satisfy the custody requirement of Art. 27, § 638C(a).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e believe that where an individual is punishable for escape for any unexcused absence from the place of confinement, his confinement is necessarily involuntary. Following his conviction, Dedo requested "any type of arrangement to assure that he comes back" for sentencing in order to allow him to receive medical treatment. We are not persuaded that Dedo's request signifies that the time he spent in home detention was voluntary. Cf. Lock[ v. State], 609 P.2d [539 ]at 545[ Alaska 1980] (defendant faced with choice between probation in residential treatment program and imprisonment can not be said to have voluntarily chosen condition of probation). Because Dedo could have been charged with escape for any unexcused absence from his home during curfew hours, his participation in the home detention program was involuntary.... Accordingly, we find that the circumstances of Dedo's home detention clearly indicate that he was in custody.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] defendant is not in custody for purposes of [§ 6-218 of the Criminal Procedure Article, formerly § 638C of Article 27] if the conditions of the defendant’s confinement do not impose substantial restrictions on the defendant’s freedom of association, activity and movement such tha,t unauthorized absence from the place of confinement would be chargeable as the criminal offense of escape ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.