Brogden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 39 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. “(a) When given. The court shall give instructions to the jury at the conclusion of all the evidence and before closing arguments and may supplement them at a later time when appropriate. In its discretion the court may also give opening and interim instructions. * * * (c) How given. The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding. The court may give its instructions orally or, with the consent of the parties, in writing instead of orally. The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Md. App. 276 - Perez v. State · 221 Md. App. 376 - Bircher v. State

2. “As this Court stated in Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 583 , 785 A.2d 348, 353 (2001), “[w]ith respect to the law to be applied in the case, when requested, it is the duty of the trial judge to instruct on the essential elements of the crime charged, any defenses supported by the evidence, and the burden of proof and presumption of innocence” (emphasis added). We have also stated that “a trial judge has a duty, upon request in a criminal case, to instruct the jury on the applicable law.... This Court has interpreted Rule 4-325(c) as ‘requiring] the trial court to give a requested instruction under the following circumstances: (1) the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) the requested instruction is applicable under the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the requested instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in the jury instruction actually given.’ ” Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (some emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Md. App. 276 - Perez v. State

3. “(e) Objection. No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party objects on the record promptly after the court instructs the jury, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. Upon request of any party, the court shall receive objections out of the hearing of the jury. An appellate court, on its own initiative or on the suggestion of a party, may however take cognizance of any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the defendant, despite a failure to object.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Md. App. 298 - McMillan v. State