State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 83 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining whether separate convictions may flow from a single event one looks at the statutory elements of the charged crimes, as opposed to the language of the charging document. If each crime, under the respective statutes, requires an element of proof that the other does not, then one is not an included offense of the other. They are separate offenses.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 462 So. 2d 123 - Tessier v. State · 464 So. 2d 622 - Murray v. State

2. “(4) Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 466 So. 2d 1246 - Williams v. State · 476 So. 2d 165 - State v. Enmund

3. “"Lesser included offense" in regard to jury alternatives is different from what that term means in regard to double jeopardy. The former implements the nonconstitutional right of an accused to an instruction which gives the jury an opportunity to convict of an offense with less severe punishment than the crime charged. The latter, on the other hand, involves distinguishing offenses in order to protect against multiple prosecutions for the same crime. As stated by Judge Cowart: Attributing category four connotations to the term "lesser included offenses" in double jeopardy analysis results in an improper consideration of the severity of the punishment and the factual allegations in [the] charging document, rather than [of] the elements of the statut[ory] offense. 425 So.2d at 53 . Brown category four lesser included offenses have nothing to do with double jeopardy or with this case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 238 Ill. 2d 161 - People v. Miller · Lemke v. Rayes