492 So. 2d 490 - State v. Joles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When there has been a misappropriation or taking by a number of distinct acts of the offender, the aggregate of the amount of the misappropriations or takings shall determine the grade of the offense."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown · 769 So. 2d 823 - State v. Short

2. ““The apparent legislative purpose of the last paragraph of Section 67 (and of the corresponding provision in Article 481) is to permit the district attorney to cumulate a series of petty thefts into a more serious crime without having to prove a single and continuous scheme. There is neither any language to indicate nor any logical reason to infer that the legislative purpose was to prevent the district attorney from charging a thief with separate counts for separate acts of major thefts, even when the misappropriations occurred in a single and continuous scheme involving a single victim within a relatively short period of time. “Neither Section 67 nor Article 481 mentions a continuous scheme or a single victim or time frame within which a series of distinct acts of thefts must occur in order to constitute proscribed conduct punishable as a single offense. One cannot reasonably ascribe to the Legislature the intent to require that a thief who has taken over $1,000,000 from each of twenty-five distinct victims by acts extending over a considerable period of time must be charged only with one offense. It is much more logical to construe the statute as evidencing an intent to permit that a series of ten thefts of $50 each may be charged as if it were one theft of $500.” Id. at 494 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown

3. “under Section 67 the district attorney may charge a number of distinct thefts in one count in a single bill of information, in which case the aggregate amount of the takings shall determine the grade of the single offense, but that Section 67 does not prohibit the district attorney from charging a number of distinct thefts in separate counts in either a single bill or multiple bills of information, in which case the amount of each taking determines the grade of the offense in each count.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 769 So. 2d 823 - State v. Short