State v. Rush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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) all of its statutory elements are included within the offense charged; or (b) it fails to meet the definition in part (a) only in the respect that it contains a statutory element or elements establishing: (1) a different mental state indicáting a lesser kind of culpability; or (2) a less serious harm or risk of harm to the same person, property or public interest; or (c)it consists of facilitation, attempt or solicitation of the offense charged.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Glen Howard · State v. Moore

2. “determine whether any evidence exists that reasonable minds could accept as to the lesser-included offense. In making this determination, the trial court must view the evidence liberally in the light most favorable to the existence of the lesser-included offense without making any judgments on the credibility of such evidence. Second, the trial court must determine if the evidence, viewed in this light, is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Watson · State v. Elkins

3. “[b]ecause the jury was not properly instructed regarding lesser-included offenses of attempted second degree murder, and because [the Defendant] was convicted of an offense which was neither included in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, [the Defendant] must have a new trial on Count I of the indictment, charging the attempted second degree murder of Tina Rush. On that Count, however, the jury at the first trial has rejected the charges of attempted second degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter by finding [the Defendant] guilty of a lesser offense, even though the offense on which it convicted [the Defendant] was not properly before it. To retry him, under these circumstances, for attempted second degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter would violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. See State v. Maupin, 859 S.W.2d 313 (Tenn.1993) (allowing retrial on lesser-included offenses but prohibiting retrial on the greater offense). Thus, on remand, [the Defendant] should be tried for any offenses which qualify under the Burns analysis as lesser-included offenses of attempted second degree murder that (1) were not originally charged; or (2) were charged but which are lesser offenses than reckless aggravated assault.”

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