State v. Sprous’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The robbery charge required proof that defendant stole property while armed with a deadly weapon. The assault charge required proof that defendant knowingly caused serious physical injury to Cantwell by shooting him, and not simply that defendant employed physical force. Each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not, and conviction of both does not violate double jeopardy jroscription. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see State v. McCrary, 621 S.W.2d 266 (Mo. banc 1981). Moreover, the act of force constituting the assault was not that which served as an element of the robbery charge. See Thompson v. State, 606 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. App.1980). The contention is quite without merit.”

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

2. ““The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , 31 S.Ct. 421, 422 , 55 L.Ed. 489, 490 , and authorities cited.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 182 , 76 L.Ed. at 309 . (Emphasis added.)”

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