Womack v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “You are to consider all the instructions as a whole and are to regard each with the others given to you. Do not single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others. * # "t The crime of Criminal Confinement is defined by law as follows: CRIMINAL CONFINEMENT A person who knowingly or intentionally removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one place to another; commits Criminal Confinement, a Class D felony. However the offense is a Class B Felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or results in serious bodily injury to another person. To convict the defendant of Criminal Confinement under Counts III and IV, the State must prove the following elements: 1. The defendant 2. knowingly 3. removed another person by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one place to another. If the State fails to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. If the State does prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you may find the defendant guilty of Criminal Confinement, a Class D Felony. If the State further proves beyond a reasonable doubt an additional element that the offense was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or resulted in serious bodily injury to another person, then you may find the defendant guilty of Criminal Confinement, a Class B Felony.”

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

2. “The jury, as well as the court, is limited and controlled in the determination of the law, not only by the constitution, but also by the legislative enactments. It goes without argument that the jury has no more right than a court has to nullify a legally enacted constitutional statute. Juries are not above the constitution or the law, and should not be told that they are. The courts, which include both judges and juries, must give full recognition to the legislative branch of the government and its constitutional acts. The jury under its constitutional right to determine the law is restricted, controlled, and should be influenced by the equally important constitutional right of the legislature to make the laws. It has an oath and duty, just as a judge does, to observe and respect such coordinate rights set forth in the constitution. To tell the jury that it is not limited, restricted, controlled, or influenced, or hampered by the court or legislature' gives a warped interpretation to one of the provisions of our constitution, thereby permitting such a provision to override all others in the constitution.”

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

3. “by sanctioning jury nullification to a greater degree than previously[.]”

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