Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2020
4 federal appellate · 13 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 Cunningham v. State · Mesmer v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund · Corbin v. State · Busch v. State · Thanos 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of Maryland Rule 4-204, governing the amendment of charging documents, is to prevent any unfair surprise to the defendant and his counsel. Contrary to the State’s argument [of harmless error], the line between an amendment which is deemed prejudicial, and one which is not deemed prejudicial, is drawn by the language of the Rule itself. If the State’s proposed amendment changes the character of the offense, and the defendant does not consent, then the amendment is deemed prejudicial to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Counts v. State · Johnson v. State“On motion of a party or on its own initiative, the court at any time before verdict may permit a charging document to be amended except that if the amendment changes the character of the offense charged, the consent of the parties is required. If amendment of a charging document reasonably so requires, the court shall grant the defendant an extension of time or continuance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Counts v. State · Johnson v. State“[A]s in Thanos [v. State, 282 Md. 709 , 387 A.2d 286 (1978)] and in Brown [v. State, 285 Md. 105 , 400 A.2d 1133 (1979)], the description of the specific act alleged was significantly changed by the amendment. The information initially accused the defendant of possessing marijuana, whereas the amended information charged an entirely different act, possessing crack cocaine. It follows that, under Thanos and Brown, the amendment did change "the character of the offense charged."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. State
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.