41 Md. App. 277 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A specific intent is not simply the intent to do the immediate act but embraces the requirement that the mind be conscious of a more remote purpose or design which shall eventuate from the doing of the immediate act. Though assault implies only the general intent to strike the blow, assault with intent to murder, rob, rape or maim requires a fully formed and conscious purpose that those further consequences shall flow from the doing of the immediate act. To break and enter requires a mere general intent but to commit burglary requires the additional specific intent of committing a felony after the entry has been made. A trespassory taking requires a mere general intent but larceny (or robbery) requires the specific animus furandi or deliberate purpose of depriving the owner permanently of the stolen goods."”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fisher and Utley v. State · Harris v. State

2. ““[t]he time need not be long. It must be sufficient for some reflection and consideration upon the matter, for choice to kill or not to kill, and for the formation of a definite purpose to kill. And when the time is sufficient for this, it matters not how brief it is.” 202 Md. at 107 , 95 A.2d 577 quoting People v. Majone, 91 N.Y. 211, 212 (1883).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ross v. State · 61 Md. App. 364 - Hounshell v. State

3. ““Houston v. State, 225 Md. 403 , 171 A.2d 233 (1961) (a street fight where the defendant only turned upon the victim at the moment when the victim attempted to dissuade him from killing another); Cook v. State, 225 Md. 603 , 171 A.2d 460 (1961) (an unexplained killing following a drunken quarrel); Taylor v. State, 226 Md. 561 , 174 A.2d 573 (1961) (a drunken quarrel with the time interval being represented by the time necessary to walk across the room, pick up a gun, raise it and fire it); Detoro v. State, 227 Md. 551 , 177 A.2d 847 (1962) (a drunken and jealous quarrel with the time for premeditation being represented by a walk to the kitchen to pick up a knife and the use of it a minute or two later); Martin v. State, 228 Md. 311 , 179 A.2d 865 (1962) (a drunken and jealous quarrel); Leyva v. State, 2 Md.App. 120, 123, 233 A.2d 498 (1967); Dubs v. State 2 Md.App. 524, 538-39, 235 A.2d 764 (1967); Brooks v. State, 3 Md.App. 485, 513 , 240 A.2d 114 (1968). The classic instance ... is Chisley v. State, 202 Md. 87 , 95 A.2d 577 (1953). Chisley had been drinking and was riding home with his father, the father’s brother-in-law and the victim. Chisley was sleeping. When the car arrived home, the father got out first, followed by the father’s brother-in-law. At that point, the brother-in-law told the father that the father had dropped some cigarettes. This was the onset of trouble. Chisley said the cigarettes were his and the victim said that they were not. The father described wha”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 61 Md. App. 364 - Hounshell v. State · Wood v. State