Owens v. Abram’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In determining whether the offenses charged are the same, the test is whether the facts offered in support of one, would sustain a conviction of the other. If either information requires the proof of facts to support a conviction which the other does not, the offenses are not the same and a plea of double jeopardy is unavailing. It is clear that the first information required proof of certain facts not required by the latter. To sustain a conviction of the former charge, an essential fact was whether the forged instrument is a document evidencing an indebtedness of a banking institution. But under the latter charge, proof of such fact was not essential to a conviction. True, the proof offered in support of the first information would sustain a conviction of the latter charge but the converse is not true; the evidence offered in support of the latter would not sustain a conviction of the former charge. “The issue of double jeopardy was before us in In re Santillanes, 47 N.M. 140 , 138 P.2d 503 , 511, and we there held; “ ‘With respect to double jeopardy, it is essential, under common law and various constitutional provisions declaratory thereof, that the second prosecution be for the same act and crime both in law and fact for which the first prosecution was instituted; * ' * * * * “Moreover, petitioner waived his right to plead former jeopardy. It was upon his own motion that the first information was dismissed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Owens v. Swope · State v. Maestas