Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
4
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Tamotsu Tanaka v. Creditors' Committee 1 · 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law · State v. Hinton · Sireci v. Florida · 534 So. 2d 393 - State v. Pennington
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As several of these cases reason, transferred intent is inapplicable where no death results and the defendant is charged with attempted murder of the intended victim, because the defendant committed a completed crime at the time he shot at the intended victim regardless of whether any injury resulted to the unintended victim. See Chinchilla , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d at 764-65 ; Calderon , 283 Cal.Rptr. at 836-37 ; Fernandez , 650 N.Y.S.2d 625 , 673 N.E.2d at 914 ."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A number of jurisdictions have rejected the doctrine of transferred intent in relation to the crime of attempted murder of the unintended victim. See, e.g., Jones v. State , 159 Ark. 215 , 251 S.W. 690 (1923); People v. Chinchilla , 52 Cal.App.4th 683 , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 761 , 765 (1997); People v. Calderon , 232 Cal.App.3d 930 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 833 (1991); State v. Hinton , 227 Conn. 301 , 630 A.2d 593 , 602 (1993); Ford v. State , 330 Md. 682 , 625 A.2d 984 (1993); State v. Williamson , 203 Mo. 591 , 102 S.W. 519 (1907); State v. Mulhall , 199 Mo. 202 , 97 S.W. 583 (1906); People v. Fernandez , 88 N.Y.2d 777 , 650 N.Y.S.2d 625 , 673 N.E.2d 910 , 914 (1996); State v. Shanley , 20 S.D. 18 , 104 N.W. 522 (1905)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockrell v. State“"If, without justification, excuse or mitigation D with intent to kill A fires a shot which misses A but unexpectedly inflicts a non-fatal injury upon B, D is guilty of an attempt to commit murder — but the attempt was to murder A whom D was trying to kill and not B who was hit quite accidentally. And so far as the criminal law is concerned there is no transfer of this intent from one to the other so as to make D guilty of an attempt to murder B. Hence, an indictment or information charging an attempt to murder B, or (under statute) an assault with intent to murder B, will not support a conviction if the evidence shows that the injury to B was accidental and the only intent was to murder A."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockrell 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.