Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Ijnherent in the statutory requirement that an accused be shown to have intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death is that an owner’s lack of consent to a forcible taking of his property is a non-issue in a robbery case. Stated another way, a taking “without the owner’s effective consent” never becomes a disputed fact issue when it is alleged, proven and found that the owner was threatened or placed in fear of imminent bodily injury or death intentionally or knowingly by an accused in the course of the taking. /”

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

2. ““Evans and its progeny should be overruled, even if ‘without the owner’s effective consent' is somehow a ‘sub-element’ of robbery, because we failed to perceive that requiring a jury to find that appellant ‘then and there intentionally and knowingly threatened or placed [complainant] in fear of imminent bodily injury or death’ rendered a factual finding to her lack of effective consent immaterial.””

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

3. “[W]e hold that, where it is alleged, proven, and found that a defendant intentionally or knowingly placed the owner in fear of imminent bodily injury or death in the course of the taking, a charge is not defective for failing to require that the jury separately find the taking to have been without the effective consent of the owner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Felton v. State