Silva v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Insomuch as the question of predisposition is a question of subjective intent, it relates to one of the elements of the offense which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The determination of such a question is exclusively for the jury.!”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schlabach v. State · Koke v. State

2. ““Indiana adopted the predisposition rule relative to the defense of entrapment in Hardin v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 635 , 358 N.E.2d 134 , which was codified in Ind.Code 35-41-3-9 (Supp.1980). It is stated that when there is evidence that a police officer or agent has participated in the buying of a controlled substance, the State must then present evidence showing the accused’s predisposition to commit the criminal act in order to prove that the criminal act was not solely the idea of the police. If the police merely afforded the accused an opportunity to commit the crime, he cannot rely upon the defense of entrapment. Horn v. State, (1978) Ind. App., 382 N.E.2d 1012 . The question of predisposition is a question of subjective intent which is a matter for the trier of fact. Stewart v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1018 . Evidence of events at the time of sale alone is sufficient to sustain the proof of predisposition. Evidence of the defendant’s ability to obtain a supply of drugs within a few minutes, several different schemes to accomplish the sale, multiple sales to officers, and a large supply of contraband in his possession has been held sufficient to show predisposition. Hutcherson v. State, (1978) Ind., 380 N.E.2d 1219 . Evidence of the defendant’s willing answer, when told by the undercover agent that he was looking for something, that the defendant had some ‘jive,’ and the defendant’s leading the officers to a restroom where the transaction was consummated was held ”

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

3. “"See. 9. (a) It is a defense that: (1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and (2) the person was not predlsposed to commit the offense. (b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment."”

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