State v. O'DELL’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 24 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. “As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about January 8, 1983, in the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Vincent Sargent caused the death of Det. Sgt. Charles James by shooting him, and Second, that Vincent Sargent did so in committing, together with the defendant, the crime of possession of a controlled substance, schedule I, over 35 grams of marijuana, then you will find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. A person is guilty of possession of over 35 grams of marijuana if he possesses that amount of marijuana and is aware of the character of the substance and knew that he possessed it. If you do find the defendant guilty under Count I of murder in the second degree in connection with possession of over 35 grams of marijuana, you will fix his punishment at imprisonment by the Division of Corrections for a term fixed by you, but not less than ten years nor more than life imprisonment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Norwood

2. “What act will constitute a substantial step will depend on the facts of the particular case. If the other requirements of attempt liability are met, the following, if strongly indicative of the actor’s criminal purpose, should not be held insufficient as a matter of law: (a) lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the offense. * * * * * * (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the offense. * * * * * * (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the offense, which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances. (f) possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the offense, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re J____ R____ N

3. “This section defines the elements of attempt and makes some change in the existing law... . 3 Subsection 1 does away with failure as an element of attempt offenses. Present law permits a defendant charged with attempt to argue that he is innocent because he actually went through with the crime. By eliminating failure as an element of attempt, the section avoids the problem of losing a conviction on a charge of attempt when the evidence shows that the offense was completed....”

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