State v. Hensley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

105 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[f]or purposes of R.C. 2901.13 (F), the corpus delicti of crimes involving child abuse or neglect is discovered when a responsible adult, as listed in R.C. 2151.421 , has knowledge of both the act and the criminal nature of the act.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Simms, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005) · State v. Koerner, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2004)

2. “{¶ 25} “(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of this section or as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed: {¶ 26} “(a) For a felony, six years; {¶ 27} “ * * * {¶ 28} “(B)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2) of this section, if the period of limitation provided in division (A)(1) or (3) of this section has expired, prosecution shall be commenced for an offense of which an element is fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty, within one year after discovery of the offense either by an aggrieved person, or by the aggrieved person’s legal representative who is not a party to the offense. {¶ 29} “ * * * {¶ 30} “(F) The period of limitation shall not run during any time when the corpus delicti remains undiscovered.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2005) · State v. Koerner, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2004)

3. ““[W]e cannot agree with the state’s argument that the statute of limitations begins to run under R.C. 2901.13(F) only when the prosecutor or other law enforcement agencies discover the corpus delicti of the crime. Such a rule of law could subject a person to criminal liability indefinitely with virtually no time limit, and thus frustrate the legislative intent of a statute of limitations on criminal prosecutions. We point once again to the Committee Comment, supra, which provides that ‘[t]he rationale for limiting criminal prosecutions is that they should be based on reasonably fresh, and therefore more trustworthy evidence.’ Hence we will not authorize such an expansive reading of R.C. 2901.13(F).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Ohio App. 3d 26 - State v. Hughes · 119 Ohio App. 3d 237 - State v. Edwards