Denicolis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26, 36-37 , 139 A.2d 209, 214 (1958), we held that an accused in a criminal prosecution has the absolute right to be present at every stage of trial from the time the jury is impaneled until it reaches a verdict or is discharged, and that includes the right to be present `when there shall be any communication whatsoever between the court and the jury[,] unless the record affirmatively shows that such communications were not prejudicial or had no tendency to influence the verdict of the jury.' We have often confirmed that fundamental principle. See Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213, 224-25 , 638 A.2d 754 , 759 (1994) (`Any communication pertaining to the action between the jury and the trial judge during the course of the jury's deliberations is a stage of the trial entitling the defendant to be present.'); Bunch v. State, 281 Md. 680, 685 , 381 A.2d 1142, 1144 (1978); Taylor v. State, 352 Md. 338, 345 , 722 A.2d 65, 68 (1998); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 322 , 765 A.2d 97, 122-23 (2001); Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488, 543 , 781 A.2d 787, 819 (2001). In Stewart , we added that this right is absolute and that `a judgment of conviction ordinarily cannot be upheld if the record discloses a violation of the right.' Stewart v. State, 334 Md. at 225 , 638 A.2d at 759 . The kinds of communication that may be regarded as nonprejudicial, as noted in Midgett , are those that clearly do not pertain to the action or to a juror's qualification to continue serving ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Md. App. 521 - Handy v. State · State v. Hart

2. “[t]he court shall notify the defendant and the State’s Attorney of the receipt of any communication from the jury pertaining to the action as promptly as practicable and in any event before responding to the communication. All such communications between the court and the jury shall be on the record in open court or shall be in writing and filed in the action. The clerk or the court shall note on a written communication the date and time it was received from the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fields v. State · 191 Md. App. 370 - OGUNDIPE v. State

3. “"It is true that a trial court's actions and decisions are generally presumed to be correct and that it is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to show otherwise. See Mora v. State, 355 Md. 639, 650 , 735 A.2d 1122, 1128 (1999) (`It is incumbent upon the appellant claiming error to produce a sufficient factual record for the appellate court to determine whether error was committed.'). See also Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., 340 Md. 202, 206 , 665 A.2d 1050, 1052 (1995); State v. Chaney, 375 Md. 168, 184 , 825 A.2d 452, 461 (2003). That assumes, of course, the ability of the appellant to produce such a record, which ordinarily is the case. Here, petitioner's ability to establish the circumstances under which the note in question was received and what, if any, reaction there was to it was hampered by the fact that neither he nor his attorney were informed about the note until after the verdict was returned, the jury was discharged, and sentence was imposed. No better record than the one that exists could be made under such a circumstance, at least for purposes of a direct appeal. Nonetheless, the record is more than sufficient to establish non-harmless error."”

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