Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We agree with Defendant that possession of cocaine is an “inherently included” lesser offense of delivering cocaine, inasmuch as it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense. . . . However, our inquiry does not end there. We must next determine whether there was “evidence of probative value from which the jury could properly find the defendant guilty of such lesser included offense.” [Quoting from Hash v. State, 258 Ind. 692 , 284 N.E.2d 770 (1972).]... In the case at bar, the element distinguishing the lesser and greater offense is delivery. We, therefore, look to see if there was probative evidence that the Defendant committed the crime of possessing cocaine . . . . Substantial evidence was produced that Defendant delivered cocaine to Karnes. Karnes testified that Defendant sold cocaine to him; a tape recording of the transaction demonstrated that he did so, and Defendant himself testified that he sold cocaine to Karnes. This evidence is not disputed, notwithstanding that Defendant raised the defense of entrapment; hence, there was no error in refusing to give the tendered instruction on lesser included offenses.”

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