61 Md. App. 364 - Hounshell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Djeath by strangulation does not in and of itself establish first degree murder. . . . Whether the time required to produce death by strangulation is sufficient for the assailant to reflect upon his actions before death ensues is a matter for the jury to determine.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Wash. 2d 820 - State v. Bingham · 954 So. 2d 1256 - Perez-Ortiz v. State

2. “Logic and common sense dictate that for one person to strangle another person to death, a significant length of time must pass for the victim to die. This time period in which the perpetrator must continuously exert sufficient force on the victim's throat to block the victim's breathing affords the perpetrator a significant opportunity for reflection and a change of heart. . . . The court specifically stated that strangulation in and of itself does not constitute first degree murder and that the manner of killing was only one circumstance for the jury to consider in reaching its verdict. . . . . . . [I]n the present case, the jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant made a premeditated decision to commit murder within the interval of time it took him to initiate and then ultimately complete the act of strangulation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 Wash. 2d 820 - State v. Bingham