State v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 557.036.2 provides, in part, that: The court shall instruct the jury as to the range of punishment authorized by statute and upon a finding of guilt to assess and declare the punishment as a part of their verdict.... Section 558.011.1(6) provides that confinement for a class B misdemeanor will be for ‘a term not to exceed six months’; and, § 560.016.1(2) authorizes a fine ‘which does not exceed ... five hundred dollars.’ Under the instructions now dictated by MAI-CR2d, the jury is not advised of nor given the latter option. For instance, Instruction No. 5, as given, followed MAI-CR2d 31.02 (Entitled— Driving While Intoxicated) and advised the jury that: If you do find the defendant guilty .. . of driving while intoxicated, you will assess and declare the punishment at imprisonment for a term fixed by you, but not to exceed six months. (Emphasis added) More disturbing than the absence of an option for the jury to assess a fine is that portion of the instruction that actually mandates that the jury declare a period of imprisonment. The problem is two-fold. What if a fine is thought by the jury to be an adequate punishment, or conversely, what if it is thought that both imprisonment and a fine should be assessed? The only answer, regularly challenged as inadequate, must come from MAI-CR2d 2.60, which advises the jury that upon a finding of guilt, the court can (1) impose imprisonment for a term not to exceed that assessed by the jury, (2) assess a fine within the limita”

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

2. “If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on July 5, 1979, on U.S. Highway 63 approximately ⅛ mile south at Route M, County of Macon, State of Missouri, the defendant operated a motor vehicle, and Second, that he did so while intoxicated to such an extent that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired in any manner, then you will find the defendant guilty, of driving while intoxicated. However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. If you do find the defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated, you will assess and declare the punishment at imprisonment for a term fixed by you, but not to exceed one year.”

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

3. “If you find the defendant guilty ... of driving while intoxicated, you will assess and declare the punishment for a term fixed by you ... or you may recommend that the court assess a fine in lieu of any imprisonment or in addition to any imprisonment which you may declare.”

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