7 Ohio App. 3d 113 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. {¶ 65} (B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Haslam, 08 Mo 3 (3-31-2009)

2. ““In order for there to be allied offenses of similar import (R.C. 2941.25), the trial court must determine that: (a) the prosecution has relied upon the same conduct to support both offenses; (b) the offenses and their elements correspond to such a degree that commission of one of the offenses will result in the commission of the other; and (c) the commission of both offenses was motivated by the same purpose or animus.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 12 Ohio App. 3d 87 - State v. Butcher

3. “prohibit duplication of punishment where both crimes are motivated by a single purpose and where conviction of both would be dependent upon identical conduct and the same evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Haslam, 08 Mo 3 (3-31-2009)