State v. Brady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 397 - Taylor v. State · 198 Md. App. 486 - Cousar v. State

2. “compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental [circumstances] to assure the defendant a fair trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 397 - Taylor v. State · 198 Md. App. 486 - Cousar v. State

3. “The most compelling reason why we reject the doctrine of transferred intent as applied to crimes of attempt is that it is not necessary to make “a whole crime out of two halves by joining the intent as to one victim with the harm caused to another victim,” the purpose for which it was conceived. Ford, 330 Md. at 712 , 625 A.2d at 998 . When the unintended victim has not suffered a fatal injury, the defendant already has committed a completed crime against the intended victim, and the seriousness of that crime is as great as if the intent were transferred to the unintended victim. Further, although not in this case, a defendant may be convicted of a crime against an unintended victim with the use of “concurrent intent” and without the use of “transferred intent.” Such a defendant also may be convicted of criminal battery, and as Judge Moylan suggested in Harvey v. State, 111 Md.App. 401, 430 , 681 A.2d 628, 643 (1996), “the crime of reckless endangerment is also available to pick up much of the slack and to make resort to the transferred intent doctrine less compelling.” There is little, if any, utility in extending the doctrine of “transferred intent” to inchoate crimes such as attempted murder.”

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