Kerlin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Kerlin argues the indictments fail to advise him of the particular crime. Usually, if an information tracks the language of the statute defining the offense, the information is sufficient. Malone v. State (1989), Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 1101, 1103 , trans. denied. Absence of detail in an information is fatal only if the phraseology misleads the defendant or fails to give him notice of the charges against him. Cash v. State (1990), Ind., 557 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 .... The language of the indictments closely track the language of the statute. Kerlin complains, though, that the indictments do not state the facts and circumstances which endangered the victims and require speculation as to what facts constitute the proscribed conduct by Kerlin. This same argument regarding the neglect statute failed in Davis v. State (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 127, 132 , trans. denied, (citations omitted). As in Davis , both indictments specified the date and place of the alleged offense and identified Kerlin and the victims by name in language paralleling the statute. The indictments contained the statutory language specifying the particular act of ‘placing the dependent in a situation endangering his life or health.’ When the statutory language enumerates the specific acts which constitute the crime, an indictment paralleling the words of the statute is sufficient. Davis, 476 N.E.2d at 132 . Further description of the injury or methods employed in committing the crime are unnecessary. Id. We find bot”

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

2. “having the care of a dependent, whether assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation, knowingly or intentionally placed the dependent, to-wit: Willard Flory, in a situation that endangered his life or health, thereby committing Neglect of a Dependent, a Class D Felony, contrary to the form of the statute as set forth in I.C. 35-46-l-4(a)(l) and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.”

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

3. “An overbreadth challenge asserts that the statute is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms and foreseeably prohibits legitimate conduct.”

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