Nicolas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Benton v. Maryland · Dorsey v. State · Schowgurow v. State · State v. Frye · Williams v. State
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The required evidence test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter. Stated another way, the required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to secure a conviction for each offense. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, or in other words, if each offense contains an element which the other does not, there is no merger under the required evidence test even though both offenses are based upon the same act or acts. But, where only one offense requires proof of an additional fact, so that all elements of one offense are present in the other, and where both offenses are based on the same act or acts[,] merger follows.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“As Maryland case law indicates, the appropriate standard to apply when addressing a question of factual ambiguity in the context of merging convictions is to resolve the ambiguity in the defendant’s favor in a situation where it is impossible to know for certain the rationale of the trier of fact for finding the convictions entered against the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that a law enforcement officer attempted to arrest the defendant; (2) that the defendant knew that a law enforcement officer was attempting to arrest [him] [her]; and (3) that the defendant refused to submit to the arrest and resisted the arrest by force.”
2 later decisions 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.