Horsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The issue raised by movant’s contention is whether or not the evidence established distinct offenses even though each was a violation of the same statute. The general rule has been stated: ‘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).’ State v. Lulkowski, 721 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.App.1986) (emphasis added). Also see Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused, § 23:8 (2d ed. 1986). However, this stated test in some instances is difficult of application. It assumes identification of a separate offense that requires proof of a fact not required by another offense. This inadequacy is apparent when the conduct of a defendant is continuous or involves more than one item of property or more than one victim. In such cases an appropriate test is what, under the statute, the legislature ‘intended to be the allowable unit of pros-ecution_’ United S”

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

2. “Promoting prostitution at two locations at the same time. State v. Lulkowski [ 721 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Mo.App.1986) ]. Consecutive opening of each of seven mailbags. Ebeling v. Morgan [ 237 U.S. 625, 629 , 35 S.Ct. 710 , 59 L.Ed. 1151 (1915)]. The theft from one vault at one time of money belonging to six different banks. United States v. Marzano [ 537 F.2d 257, 272 (7th Cir.1976)]. The simultaneous possession of a sawed-off gun and a silencer attached to that gun. United States v. Nichols, 731 F.2d 545 (8th Cir.1984). The almost simultaneous distribution of two different drugs. State v. Gordon, 536 S.W.2d 811 (Mo.App. 1976).... The simultaneous possession of heroin and marijuana. State v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App. 1976).”

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

3. “The simultaneous transportation of two women in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution. Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 , 75 S.Ct. 620 , 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955). The simultaneous transportation of a group of States, Cabhell v. United States, 636 F.2d 246 (8th Cir.1980). The fraudulent issuance in one transaction of three identical stock certificates. State v. Toombs [ 326 Mo. 981 , 34 S.W.2d 61 (1930)].”

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