Morgan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because neither the preliminary nor the final instructions informed the jury of the date upon which the overt act of the cocaine sale occurred, it is possible for the jury to have convicted Morgan of conspiracy based upon any one of the several alleged sales. It is also possible that the transaction [constituting the underlying offense] was the sale of cocaine that constituted the sole overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy found by the jury. While the State presented evidence of other sales, the manner in which the offenses were charged and the jury was instructed relieved the State of the requirement to present such independent evidence. The State could have gained a conviction for conspiracy based upon the same overt act supporting the dealing conviction. This violates double jeopardy principles.”

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

2. “[T]he trial court must make a preliminary factual determination of voluntariness when assessing the statement's admissibility. The jury, however, remains the final arbiter of all factual issues under Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution. Even if the court preliminarily determines that the statement is voluntary and admits it for the jury's consideration, then the defendant is still entitled to dispute the voluntariness of the statement once it is presented to the jury. Although the court has previously determined voluntariness in connection with the statement's admissibility, the jury may find that the statement was involuntarily given. If the jury makes such a determination, then it should give the statement no weight in deciding the defendant's guilt or innocence.”

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

3. “"Here, Count II charged Morgan with dealing based upon his sale of the single cocaine rock to the undercover officer. Count III charged Morgan with possession ... based upon Morgan's possession of the eighteen cocaine rocks in addition to the one he sold to the officer. Because the delivery charge is based upon the sale of the single rock of cocaine to the undercoyer officer, while the possession charge is based upon the possession of eighteen additional rocks of cocaine, double jeopardy is not offended. Morgan committed two separate offenses when he sold some drugs but kept others in his possession."”

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