State v. Motta’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]his court has applied different principles depending on whether or not an objection was timely raised in the trial court. Under the "Motta/Wells post-conviction liberal construction rule," we liberally construe charges challenged for the first time on appeal.... Under this approach, there is a "presumption of validity,"... for charges challenged subsequent to a conviction. In those circumstances, this court will "not reverse a conviction based upon a defective indictment [or complaint] unless the defendant can show prejudice or that the indictment [or complaint] cannot within reason be construed to charge a crime.".... However, the rule does not apply when reviewing timely motions challenging the sufficiency of an indictment.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Tominiko · State v. TOMINIKO

2. “absent a clear showing of prejudice—such as a showing that the indictment is 'so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge (he offense for which conviction was had’ ” (emphasis added)) (as quoted in Motta, 66 Haw. at 91 , 657 P.2d at 1020 ). . HRS § 702-205 provides in relevant part that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Tominiko · State v. Sprattling

3. “Burglary in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree if he intentionally enters or remains unlawfully in a building, with intent to commit therein a crime against a person or against property rights, and: (a) He is armed with a dangerous instrument in the course of committing the offense; or (b) He intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on anyone in the course of committing the offense; or (c) He recklessly disregards a risk that the building is the dwelling of another, and the building is such a dwelling. (2) An act occurs “in the course of committing the offense” if it occurs in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom.”

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