Miles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When two offenses do not merge under the required evidence test, we have applied as a principle of statutory construction the ‘rule of lenity,’ which ‘provides that doubt or ambiguity as to whether the legislature intended that there be multiple punishments for the same act or transaction “will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses.” ’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 192 Md. App. 134 - Marlin v. State · Alexis v. State

2. ““The required evidence test ‘ “focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter.” ’ Snowden v. State, supra, 321 Md. at 617 , 583 A.2d at 1059 , quoting State v. Jenkins, 307 Md. 501, 517 , 515 A.2d 465, 473 (1986). Stated another way, the ‘ “required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to secure a conviction for each ... offense. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, or in other words, if each offense contains an element which the other does not,” ’ there is no merger under the required evidence test even though both offenses are based upon the same act or acts. ‘ “But, where only one offense requires proof of an additional fact, so that all elements of one offense are present in the other,” ’ and where both ‘offenses are based on the same act or acts, ... merger follows.... ’ Williams v. State, supra, 323 Md. at 317-318, 593 A.2d at 673, quoting in part Thomas v. State, 277 Md. 257, 267 , 353 A.2d 240, 246-247 (1976). “When there is a merger under the required evidence test, separate sentences are normally precluded. Instead, a sentence may be imposed only for the offense having the additional element or elements. * * * “When applying the required evidence test to multipurpose offenses, ie, offenses having alternative elements, a court must ‘examin[e] the ”

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

3. “[L]ike other canons of statutory construction, the rule of lenity is neither absolute nor exclusive. Other considerations may also be applicable in arriving at a principled decision. For example, in deciding merger questions, we have examined the position taken in other jurisdictions. We have also looked to whether the type of act has historically resulted in multiple punishments. The fairness of multiple punishments in a particular situation is obviously important.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Alexis v. State