Nash v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D Felony. (b) A person who knowingly or intentionally receives, retains or disposes of the property of another person that has been the subject of theft commits receiving stolen property, a Class D Felony."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walden v. State · McBride v. State

2. “"The unexplained exclusive possession of a defendant of recently stolen property is a circumstance which may be considered with the other facts and circumstances of the case in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the mere possession of stolen goods, standing alone, is insufficient to support a conviction; and the defendant cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence of mere possession of stolen goods alone. If you should find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a burglary [theft] was in fact, committed on the premises involved in the case, and that within a short period of time thereafter the defendant himself or with others was found in the unexplained exclusive possession of property identified by the evidence as that stolen from the premises, you may consider such circumstances in arriving at your verdict in this case. However, no presumption of guilt of theft is made or arises against the defendant merely by reason of his exclusive possession of goods which have been unlawfully taken within a short period of time beforehand if such be the case. Proof of the commission of the offense must be made beyond a reasonable doubt by the State, and the defendant has no burden to account for or explain his possession of the goods; but the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reason able doubt rests entirely upon the State; and you would not be warranted in finding the defendant guilty unless all of the elements of the offense charged have been”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. State · Peters v. State

3. “This raises the issue whether evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction of receiving stolen property under subsection (b) is sufficient to sustain a conviction pursuant to subsection (a) of the theft statute. We hold it is. It is well established in Indiana that subsection (a) of the theft statute, which makes it an offense to knowingly exert unauthorized control over property of another, comprehends a broad field of conduct including any other narrowly defined activity specifically enumerated in the statute, such as receiving stolen property. Green v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 481 , 282 N.E.2d 548 ; Elmore v. State (1978), [176] Ind. App., [306] 375 N.E.2d 660 , vacated on other grounds, 269 Ind. 532 , 382 N.E.2d 893 . In essence, facts sufficient to sustain a conviction of receiving stolen property pursuant to subsection (b) are also prima facie proof of the general charge of exerting unauthorized control over property. As our supreme court stated: The fact that there are other included offenses, which are more narrowly defined does not prohibit the state from prosecuting under a broader provision of the statute, such as the one in this case which covers any "unauthorized control of the property of the owner."”

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