State v. Lulkowski’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2012
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Houltin v. United States · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · State v. Treadway · State v. Williams
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To determine whether a defendant has been subjected to double jeopardy, Missouri courts follow the separate or several offense rule rather than the same transaction rule. State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978). Under this rule, ‘multiple convictions are permissible if the defendant has in law and in fact committed separate crimes.’ Id. The applicable test, to determine whether several charges are identical, is ‘whether each offense necessitates proof of a fact which the other does not.’ State v. Charles, 612 S.W.2d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 522 , 70 L.Ed.2d 392 (1981) (citing Block-burger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). The fact that there is some overlapping evidence that supports the convictions for both offenses does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. State v. Murray, 630 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Mo. banc 1982).” State v. Lulkowski, 721 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.App.1986). The Blockburger test focuses upon the elements of the offenses involved. State v. Bowles, 754 S.W.2d 902 , supra. The quoted statement recognizes separate crimes and yet ambiguously relies upon the Blockburger test of different elements to determine if separate prosecutions are barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The ambiguity is apparent if the different elements test is applied to determine if two successive rapes constitute separ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Horsey v. State · Wright v. State“1. A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution in the first degree if he knowingly (1) Promotes prostitution by compelling a person to enter into, engage in, or remain in prostitution; or (2) Promotes prostitution of a person less than sixteen years old. 2. The term “compelling” includes (1) The use of forcible compulsion; (2) The use of a drug or intoxicating substance to render a person incapable of controlling his conduct or appreciating its nature; (3) Withholding or threatening to withhold dangerous drugs or a narcotic from a drug dependent person. § 567.050, RSMo 1986.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodson v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.