Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Substantial” risk is risk that has “substance or actual existence.” Boushehry v. State, 648 N.E.2d 1174, 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) [, reh’g denied, trans. denied] (citing Elliott v. State, 560 N.E.2d 1266, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.1990)). Smith points to our opinions in Boushehry and Elliott in support of his argument that the State relied on mere speculation that his actions posed a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. However, both cases relied upon by Smith are distinguishable from the instant case. In Elliott , the defendant fired five pistol shots from his place of business over uninhabited fields and woodlands which bordered his business. Elliott, 560 N.E.2d at 1267 . Some of Elliott’s employees were present at the time; however, none of the employees were in his line of fire. Id. Moreover, although hunters were known to hunt in the adjacent fields and woodlands, no evidence was presented that anyone was present in the woodlands or fields. Id. Accordingly, we reversed Elliot’s criminal recklessness conviction concluding that his conduct did not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person “because there were no people in or near his line of fire.” Id. Similarly, in Boushehry , the defendant went to a vacant lot and fired two or three shots from his .22 caliber rifle at some geese. Boushehry, 648 N.E.2d at 1176 . The defendant’s shots were fired in the direction of Shelbyville Road, which bordered the vacant lot. Id. As with the “nonexistent hunters”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kenneth S. Tipton v. State of Indiana