State v. Jeffries’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, the [lesser-included offense] doctrine allows a trier of fact to convict a defendant of an offense less serious than the one charged. [Christen R. Blair, Constitutional Limitations on the Lesser-included Offense Doctrine, 21 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 445 (1984).]... Historically, the doctrine developed to implement the policy at common law against multiple trials for the same allegations of illegal conduct. The doctrine eventually evolved as an aid to the prosecution when there was a failure of proof of some element necessary for conviction of the offense charged. Mascolo, Procedural Due Process And the Lesser-included Offense Doctrine, 50 Alb.L.Rev. 263, 265-66 (1986). Today, the defense, more often than the prosecution, is likely to seek the doctrine’s application as a hedge against conviction of the greater offense. Barnett, The Lesser-included Offense Doctrine: A Present Day Analysis For Practitioners, 5 Conn.L.Rev. 255,255-56(1972).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Warren v. State · Craney v. State

2. “for double-jeopardy purposes. Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188 , 9 S.Ct. 672, 676 , 33 L.Ed. 118, 122 (1889). According to Nielsen, if an offense is a lesser-included one of the offense charged, a conviction or acquittal of the charged offense bars a subsequent prosecution of the lesser offense. Id. Further, a conviction or acquittal of the lesser-included offense bars a subsequent prosecution of the greater offense. In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932), the Supreme Court laid down the following test for determining the”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lauthern v. State · State v. Lange

3. “"Under the cognate approach, a defendant may be convicted of a lesser offense that, under the strict statutory-elements approach, is not necessarily committed in the course of committing the greater offense. The lesser offense is related and, hence, `cognate' in the sense that it has several elements in common with the greater offense but may have one or two elements not essential to the greater crime.... ... [T]he cognate-evidence method, focuses on the evidence supporting the charge rather than on the statutory elements or the accusatory pleading."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Garza · State v. Williams