People v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 126 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An essential element of the crime of robbery or attempted kidnapping or kidnapping [of] which the defendant is accused in counts 2, 3 & 4 of the information is intent, the law requiring that to constitute such a crime there must exist a union or joint operation of criminal conduct and criminal intent. However, this does not mean that one must intend all the consequences of his conduct, or that he must know that such conduct is unlawful, to he guilty of a public offense such as that charged against the defendant in this ease. The intent to do the forbidden thing constitutes the criminal intent. The law requires that to be guilty of crime, one must intend the conduct that fits the description of the crime and must engage in that conduct knowingly and wilfully. ’ ’ 5 “In the case of certain crimes it is necessary that, in addition to the intended act which characterizes the offense, the act must be accompanied by a specific or particular intent without which such a crime may not be committed. “This [sic] in the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery charged in count one of the information, a necessary element is the existence in the mind of the perpetrator of the specific intent to commit robbery and, unless such intent so exists, that crime is not committed. ’ ’ 6 “An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements, namely, a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. ’ ’ 7”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 223 Cal. App. 2d 225 - People v. Smith

2. “The American system requires an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the entire community and recognition must be given to the fact that eligible jurors are to be found in every stratum of society. In selecting a truly representative jury panel, the membership lists of various clubs and organizations may properly be used, but they should not be relied on as the principal source of prospective jurors nor should they be used to the complete exclusion of other general sources more likely to represent a cross-section of the population, such as telephone directories, voting lists, and city directories. Any system or method of jury selection which fails to adhere to these democratic fundamentals, which is not designed to encompass a cross-section of the community or which seeks to favor limited social or economic classes, is not in keeping with the American tradition and will not be condoned by this court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler

3. ““Defendant says that the instructions given were inadequate because they contained no ‘explanation clarifying the legal concept of consciousness to be applied.’ The refused instructions attempt to give such ‘explanation.’ In this they are not successful. They seek to clarify the concept of ‘conscious mind’ by contrasting it with ‘subj ective mind,’ but the latter phrase has no legal meaning, is not used in a medical sense in the proposed instruction, and would tend to confuse rather than enlighten the jury.””

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