Austin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Larceny is the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof. Title 21, O.S.A., § 1701.” “All persons concerned in the commission of crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, are principals. Title 21, O.S.A., § 172.” “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and a prin cipal, and between principals in the first and second degree; in cases of felony, is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, must be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals and no additional facts need be alleged in any indictment or information against such an accessory than are required in an indictment or information against his principal.” “Proof that defendant aided and abetted the principals in the commission of the crime can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and if sufficient, as in the instant cause, will support the verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dean v. State · Battles v. State

2. ““Defendant further complains that since the suits were not removed from the premises, that there was no actual aspor-tation or taking, and certainly no removal by him, as he did not have possession of them. 52 C.J.S. Larceny § 4, at pg. 800, states: ‘Under some statutes, where goods are taken with intent to appropriate, it is not necessary that the appropriation be completed or consummated in order to constitute the offense, since the crime was complete when accused took control of the goods with intent to appropriate them.’ 52 C.J.S. § 6, on Larceny, at pg. 802, regarding asportation, states: ‘In order to constitute an asportation of goods it is not necessary that they should be removed from the building or yard in which they are stored, or from the vehicle in which they are being transported, but any removal of the property or goods from their original status, such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner, constitutes an aspor-tation or carrying away, even though the transfer of possession existed for a very brief period of time. Thus the act of a thief in putting an article into his pocket or into a basket, or sack which he carries is an asportation, even though he never leaves the owner’s premises.’ (Emphasis ours) And, further: ‘The taking of goods from a box or barrel and laying them on the floor beside it constitutes an asportation of them; and so does the act of taking grain from a bin’ and putting it into sacks or into a truck, or hav”

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

3. ““Defendant could be convicted of grand larceny of suits notwithstanding that he did not have possession of suits and was not caught in the act of concealing and carrying them away, where he was charged conjointly with acting together with the two women who were actually caught with the suits, and who accompanied him into the store.””

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