Lash v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “"Lash contends it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to order the jury imposed penalties of ten years on each count of armed robbery to run consecutively. We find no abuse of discretion. In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Walker v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 649 , 372 N.E.2d 739 . We will reverse only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to but one conclusion and the trial court has reached an opposite conclusion. Rinard v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 160 . IC XX-XX-X-X (Burns Code Ed. 1975) sets out the penalty provisions applicable to the offense of armed robbery. It provides in pertinent part: `The penalty imposed by this chapter [section] is to be fixed by the court or jury trying the case, which sentence the court shall not have the power to suspend: Provided, That such court shall have the right to provide in the judgment that such term of imprisonment shall not run concurrently with any imprisonment that may be adjudged for any additional crimes being attempted or committed at the same time but that such term of imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment adjudged for any such additional crimes.' The statute authorized the judge to order the imposed penalties to run consecutively. This authority imposed in the trial judge does not usurp the power of the fact finder to set the penalty for each offense, as Lash wou”

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

2. ““The robbery statute specifically speaks not only in terms of a taking but also of an individual being placed in fear or subjected to violence. We conclude the legislative intent is that each person has a sanctity that is to be protected. Thus, while courts have chosen to diminish the importance of the amount, type or ownership of property we will not similarly emasculate the element of fear in the robbery statute. Placing multiple persons in fear and taking property from them constitutes multiple offenses of robbery. Proof of the element of fear is separate and distinct as to the identity of the person from whom the property is taken although, due to the single larceny doctrine, proof of the item taken or its ownership, regardless of how multiple, can establish but one theft. Therefore, we conclude, there may be as many offenses of robbery as there are persons placed in fear or subjected to violence and from whom property is taken.” Id. at 343-44 .”

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