LeCompte v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2010
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Missouri v. Hunter · Whalen v. United States · Albernaz v. United States · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo
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.
“Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime”; (2)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When I sentence somebody, I take into consideration the entire nature of the offense and then determine what would be the appropriate sentence, for that conduct, and depending upon the nature of the charges, apportion it among those charges. I sentenced the defendant [White] for robbery first degree, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony and conspiracy. At that time I determined that a twenty-five year sentence was appropriate, fifteen years for the robbery, knowing that the first three years was a minimum-mandatory sentence; five years for the weapon, knowing that it was a minimum-mandatory sentence; and five years for conspiracy. The Supreme Court [in LeCompte ] ... said I ha[d] to dispose of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. I feel that I have the power and the jurisdiction to increase the robbery sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. State“The weapons law focuses on the actual risk attendant to the presence of a deadly instrumentality during the commission of a felony. See Mack [v. State, Del.Supr., 312 A.2d 319, 321-22 (1973) ]. The first degree robbery statute covers the interaction between the aggravated circumstances created by the defendant’s conduct and the perceptions of the victim. See [State v.] Smallwood, [Del.Supr., 346 A.2d 164 , 166—67 (1975)]. Thus, even though the statutes overlap in the sense that a defendant may be convicted of both crimes on essentially the same facts, the different focus and emphasis of each statute demonstrate a legislative intent that these two separate offenses give rise to cumulative sentencing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Desmond v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.