Pierce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “In two recent decisions with almost identical factual and legal issues, the Supreme Court modified the fundamental error rule enunciated in Spradlin, Abdul-Wadood [ v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 1299 ], and Smith. In Jackson v. State (1991), Ind., 575 N.E.2d 617 , and Allen v. State (1991), Ind., 575 N.E.2d 615 , the Supreme Court concluded that the failure to properly instruct the jury as to the specific "intent to kill" element of attempted murder is not necessarily fundamental reversible error. In both Jackson and Allen , the Supreme Court focused on two factors. First, in each case, the instructions to the jury included, as an element that the State must prove, that the defendant "attempt[ed] to commit the crime of murder by attempting to kill " the victim. Jackson, supra at 620 ; Allen, supra at 616 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court determined that, while the element of "intent to kill" was lacking in the instruction, the instruction was sufficient to convey the State's burden to prove intent to kill such that giving the instruction was not fundamental error. The other factor on which the Supreme Court focused is that in each case the defendant's intent was not an issue, but rather the issue at the center of each trial was the identity of the perpetrator of the crimes. The Supreme Court's holding that the instructions did not constitute fundamental error was grounded solely on those two factors.”

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

2. “the instructions given to Pierce's jury did not contain the additional `by attempting to kill' language found in both Jackson and Allen . Rather, the trial court merely instructed the jury as to the elements of attempt and the elements of murder. Further, Pierce's intent was the primary issue at his trial. Pierce argued that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent. Therefore, because none of the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in Jackson and Allen are present here, our original decision is still mandated by Spradlin, Abdul-Wadood and Smith . Despite the State's argument to the contrary, we do not read the Supreme Courts decisions in Jackson and Allen as overruling Spradlin, Abdul-Wadood, and Smith . It would appear the Supreme Court was only modifying its previous rule concerning fundamental error in attempted murder instructions in Jackson and Allen .”

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