Bocko v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from accept able standards of conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vertner v. State · Avant v. State

2. “(a) A person who possesses a raw material, an instrument, a device, or other object that the person intends to use for: (1) introducing into the person's body a controlled substance; (2) testing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of a controlled substance; or (8) enhancing the effect of a controlled substance; in violation of this chapter commits a Class A infraction for possessing paraphernalia. (b) A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally violates subsection (a); and (2) has a previous judgment or conviction under this section; commits possession of paraphernalia, a Class D felony. (c) A person who recklessly possesses a raw material, an instrument, a device, or other object that is to be used primarily for: ~ (1) introducing into the person's body a controlled substance; (2) testing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of a controlled substance; or (3) enhancing the effect of a controlled substance; in violation of this chapter commits reckless possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prfaviousjudgment or conviction under this section.”

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

3. “A mistrial is an extreme remedy warranted only when no other curative measure will rectify the situation. The determination of whether to grant a mistrial is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. An abuse of discretion has occurred if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. We .accord great deference to the trial court’s decision, as it is in the best position to gauge the circumstances and the probable impact on the jury. When determining whether a mistrial is warranted, we must consider whether the defendant was placed in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. The gravity of the peril is determined by the probable persuasive effect of the matter complained of on the jury’s decision.”

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