Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 2012 Ark. App. 74 - Plessy v. State (2012), Green v. State (2012)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 White v. State · Smith v. State · Flanagan v. State · Henry v. State · Doss 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the amendment did not change the nature of the kidnapping charge; rather, it amended the manner in which the alleged kidnapping took place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well settled that the State is entitled to amend an information at any time prior to the case being submitted to the jury so long as the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the offense charged or create unfair surprise. Flanagan v. State , 368 Ark. 143 , 243 S.W.3d 866 (2006) ; DeAsis v. State , 360 Ark. 286 , 200 S.W.3d 911 (2005) ; Stewart v. State , 338 Ark. 608 , 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999). In Kelch v. Erwin , 333 Ark. 567 , 970 S.W.2d 255 (1998), this court analyzed the issue of whether a trial court properly allowed the State to amend an information to conform to the proof in the case. In ruling that the amendment was proper, this court quoted from Wilson v. State , 286 Ark. 430 , 692 S.W.2d 620 (1985) and stated: The state is entitled to amend an information to conform to the proof when the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the alleged offense.... Such authorization simplifies procedure and eliminates some technical defenses by which an accused might escape punishment.... The change sought by the state would not have changed the nature or degree of the offense but would merely have authorized a less severe penalty. Id. at 432 , 692 S.W.2d at 621 (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Brown , 283 Ark. 304 , 306, 675 S.W.2d 822 , 824 (1984) ). This court has even allowed an amendment that authorizes a more severe penalty where the appellant was sufficiently apprised of the specific crime charged "to the extent necessary to enable her to prep”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson 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.