State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “• Movant was charged by complaint on March 17, 2005, with two counts of felony assault, and two related counts of armed crinjinal action, and was arrested on these charges on or before May 10, 2005, and held without bond. • Movant was bound over June 22, 2005. A felony information was filed six. days later, and Movant was arraigned thereon July 18, 2005. • It appears the case was first set for trial on September 30,2005, although this setting actually may have been for a pretrial conference only. • From on or shortly after July 18, 2005, until on or shortly before September 14, 2005, Movant declined to apply for a public defender though expressing that he desired to be represented by an attorney. • On September 28, 2005, trial was set ' for April 17, 2006 — the docket sheet does not show an objection by Mov- ■ ant to this trial setting. • Before the trial could occur, Movant, on March 1,2006, filed a motion for a psychiatric examination to determine his competency to proceed; • The motion was granted on March 20,2006. • Movant subsequently was examined, and, on May 19, 2006, was ordered to be committed to the Department of Mental Health. • Movant actually was transported to the Department of Mental Health on , or about June 14,2006. .. • Movant remained in the custody of the Department of Mental Health . until he was found competent to proceed on July -19, 2011. 5 That same - day, the trial court set the case for trial on January 3,2012. • On December 19, ■ 2011, the trial co”

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

2. “Joinder of the 7 counts relating to 3 separate and distinct offenses in this case ... would result in substantial prejudice to defendant because the jury would likely consider evidence of guilt on one charge as evidence of guilt on another charge. [[Image here]] Regarding count 7 (the felony of possession of cocaine), when combined with counts 1-6 (the felonies of sexually abusing children), the jury will have totally different evidence to consider regarding each count, especially relating to the drug possession case. Because the jury will likely be inflamed by evidence regarding Defendant’s alleged-sexual contact with the child complainants, it will also likely conclude that Defendant should be punished for drug abuse even though they may not believe he is guilty of doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. The prejudice of comb[in]ing count 7 with the other 6 counts against Defendant is highly prejudicial to his right to a fair trial unless severance is granted as requested herein.”

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

3. “All offenses’ that are of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SCOTT ALAN ST. GEORGE