State v. Donald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. “(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 131 - State v. Brown · State v. Logan

2. ““Kidnapping, as defined by R. C. 2905.01(A)(4), is an ‘offense of similar import’ to rape, as defined byR. C. 2907.02(A) (1), for purposes of application of R. C. 2941.25(A).” (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Ohio App. 3d 216 - State v. Clay · 70 Ohio App. 2d 20 - State v. Moralevitz

3. ““Animus” has been defined as “purpose, or more properly, immediate motive.” State v. Logan (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 126, at 131 [ 14 O.O.3d 373 ], The word “purpose” is further explained in the following holding from State v. Donald (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 73, at 75 [ 11 O.O.3d 242 ]: “Within the contemplation of R.C. 2941.25(A), allied crimes of similar import necessarily must consist of crimes committed for the same purpose. As the Court of Appeals stated in its decision, R.C. 2941.25(A) ⅜ * prohibits duplication where both crimes are motivated by a single purpose and where both convictions rely upon identical conduct and the same evidence. ’ ” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 131 - State v. Brown · 3 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Cartellone