78 Mich. App. 745 - People v. Harless’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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.

1. ““Malice is implied from the nature of the act which caused the death. Malice can be implied from using the weapon on another person. You are not obligated to reach the conclusion, but you must imply malice if you find death was implied by the use of a gun against another. The doing of a cruel act without excuse or justification.” (Transcript, Vol. VI, at 91) (emphasis added)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. Harless · 504 F. Supp. 1135 - Harless v. Anderson

2. “In our view, Harless adequately exhausted available state remedies for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c). The respondent concedes that Harless presented to the state appellate courts all the facts on which he based his federal constitutional claim. Respondent contends, however, that the state courts had no opportunity to correct the constitutional error, because Harless did not explicitly complain to the state courts that the malice instruction denied him due process. "Although we do not have before us Harless' state appellate papers, we learn from the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion the substance of Harless' contention before that court: 'The trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury incorrectly on the implication (sic) of malice that might be drawn from defendant's use of a deadly weapon, the effect of which was to remove the possible finding of manslaughter.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. Harless · Harless v. Anderson

3. ““We do not believe in this case that the instruction given to the jury prevented their factual determination of whether malice existed or, consequently, whether manslaughter was a proper verdict. . .. They were not ordered to find malice simply because a deadly weapon was used. “... By leaving to the jury the freedom to determine from the facts that malice would not necessarily be implied from the use of a deadly weapon, the trial court did not remove possible consideration of a manslaughter verdict from the jury----””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 504 F. Supp. 1135 - Harless v. Anderson