State v. Testerman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant attacks the judgment and sentence in the assault case on the grounds that the judgment recites a finding of guilt on the charge of ‘felonious assault.’ He points out that no reference was made to malice, the distinguishing feature between the offenses defined by § 559.180 and § 559.-190, RSMo 1959. He contends that the judgment and sentence is for the offense defined by § 559.190. Appellant’s contention is based upon the photostatic copy of his commitment, attached to his petition. The judgment proper is the basic record. Williford v. Stewart, 355 Mo. 715 , 198 S.W.2d 12, 14 [3, 4], The transcript on appeal does not contain a copy of the record judgment in the assault case. The judge’s minutes appear, but the offense to which defendant entered his plea is not shown in the minutes. If the commitment truly reflects the recorded judgment, there is merit in appellant’s contention. An offense under § 559.190 is an included offense in a charge under § 559.180. State v. Parrish, Mo.Sup., 214 S.W.2d 558 , 560 [8-10]; State v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 165 S.W.2d 420 , 421 [2, 3]. The judgment is required to state ‘briefly the offense for which [the] conviction shall have been had * * § 546.590, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Here the description of the offense is not sufficient to describe an offense under § 559.180, although it is adequate for the included offense under § 559.190. Therefore, if such is the true state of the record, the only conviction of record is for an offense for which the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Testerman v. Swenson