38 Md. App. 550 - Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2011
12 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 Newton v. State · Gleaton v. State · Bird v. State · 87 Md. App. 364 - Yost v. Early · Reid 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear that Watts was decided under what the Court of Appeals has termed the ‘actual evidence’ test, i.e., whether the evidence actually produced at trial on both offenses is substantially the same. This test was specifically rejected by the Court of Appeals in Newton in favor of the ‘required evidence’ test quoted above. In light of Newton , we now overrule our holding in Watts that the offenses of carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon openly with intent to injure a named person and assault with intent to murder that person merge.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pair v. State · Brooks v. State“In Watts v. State, 3 Md.App. 454 , 240 A.2d 317 (1968), we held, under the circumstances in that case, that the offenses of carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon openly with intent to injure a named person merged into the offense of assault with intent to murder that particular person. Because the same weapon, a sawed-off shotgun, was used in each offense, and because the victims were the same persons described in each offense, and because there was identity of time, place and circumstances of each offense, we held that ‘The elements of the two crimes are the same.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pair v. State“Thus, under both federal double jeopardy principles and Maryland merger law, the test for determining the identity of offenses is the required evidence test. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same and do not merge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pair 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.