Wooten-Bey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The evidence ... presented two possible versions of how the homicide occurred. In both versions, the victim was killed as a result of the accidental discharge of a gun held by the appellant. In the State’s version, the killing occurred in the course of the perpetration of an attempted armed robbery. In the appellant’s version, it did not. The jury was instructed that a felony murder is a killing, even if it is committed without any intent to kill, committed in the course of an attempt to commit an armed robbery; that a second-degree murder is a killing with an intent to kill or an intent to commit grievous bodily harm; and that manslaughter is a killing resulting from grossly negligent conduct. The jury found the appellant not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter, but were unable to agree on a verdict as to felony murder or attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. The jury could have grounded its verdict on second-degree murder upon a finding that there had been no intent to kill or to commit grievous bodily harm. The verdict on manslaughter could have been grounded upon a finding that there had been no grossly negligent conduct. Neither intent to kill nor negligence is a necessary element in the crime of felony murder. Indeed, it appears that the jury’s inability to agree on a verdict as to attempted robbery with a deadly weapon was the cause of its inability to agree on a verdict as to felony murder. Wooten-Bey, 67 Md.App. at 611-612 , 508 A.2d 1010 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wooten-Bey v. State

2. ““The appellant ... seems to suggest that since a mistrial is equivalent to no trial at all, Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 671 , 381 A.2d 671 (1978), he was therefore not prosecuted on the theory of felony murder ... We decline to accept that logic. In our view, the declaration of a mistrial for manifest necessity is the equivalent of a reversal of a conviction on appeal, for double jeopardy purposes.” (emphasis supplied).”

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

3. “If the factual issue in a case is so exclusive that a verdict of acquittal must have, by logical necessity, decided a particular fact in favor of a defendant, then the State will be barred by collateral estoppel principles from relitigating that fact even in the trial of a different case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wooten-Bey v. State