State v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Missouri v. Frye · State v. Miller · State v. Celis-Garcia · State v. Cannady · State v. Baxter
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[J]ury instructions in “multiple acts” cases must be modified to ensure each juror agrees the defendant committed the same criminal act that the other jurors find the defendant, committed. [[Image here]] A multiple acts case arises when there is evidence of multiple, distinct criminal acts, each of which could serve as the basis- for a criminal-charge, but the defendant is charged with those acts in a single count. To determine if a case is a multiple acts case, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the acts occur at or near the same time; (2) whether the acts occur at the same location; '(3) whether there is a causal relationship between the acts, in particular whether there was an intervening event; and (4) whether there is a fresh impulse motivating some of the conduct. The evidence suggests this is a multiple acts case. Victim testified [Rose] touched her vagina more than twenty times. These acts occurred on various days in different rooms of the home and yard. As the acts occurred at different times and in different locations and by their very nature involved intervening events and fresh motives, this is a multiple acts case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that between June 1, 2010 and August 15, 2010, in the County of Christian, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly placed his finger inside the vagina of [Victim], and Second, that such conduct constituted deviate sexual intercourse, and Third, that at that time [Victim] was a child less than fourteen years old, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of statutory sodomy in the first degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. As used in this instruction, the term “deviate sexual intercourse” means any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.