Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An attempt to commit a crime requires three elements: (1) the intent to commit a specific crime; (2) an overt act; and (3) failure to consummate the intended crime. 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 71 at 151 — 152 (1957). It is a general proposition of the criminal law, however, that ‘circumstantial evidence may determine . . . such facts or elements as the existence of an intent .’ 3 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 980 at 467-468 (1955). In fact, intent can rarely be shown by direct proof and must, necessarily, be shown by circumstantial evidence. While our cases say that all elements of a crime can be proved by circumstantial evidence, McClary v. State, 211 Tenn. 46 , 362 S.W.2d 450 (1962); Smith v. State, 205 Tenn. 502 , 327 S.W.2d 308 (1959); Marable v. State, 203 Tenn. 440 , 313 S.W.2d 451 (1958), we have no case directly on the effect of such facts as were proved in this case. “In State v. Morelock, 164 N.W.2d 819 (Iowa 1969), the defendants were charged with attempt to break and enter a business establishment with intent to commit larceny. The evidence showed that when apprehended the defendants were attempting to gain illegal entry into a closed business establishment, they had damaged the door and lock by employing force, and they were apprehended at a time when entry was almost effected. They had in their possession gloves, a flashlight, a screwdriver, and a crowbar. The court held that the intent to steal could be inferred from the actual breaking and enterin”

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