79 Md. App. 152 - Parham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The only evidence on the status of the property in the instant case was that Queen [the defendant's wife] was in sole possession and in the process of purchasing the property in her own name, and that appellant was living with his sister and was not on the title. Appellant had separated from his wife approximately six weeks prior to the incident, having spent only a week in the West Lombard Street home before the separation. He had left very few belongings there most of his clothes were at other places. "While we have not had occasion to hold specifically than an estranged spouse can be convicted of burglary if the dwelling house broken into was once shared with his or her spouse, other courts have held, virtually unanimously, that the marital relationship does not preclude a conviction for burglary. We discovered no cases other than the following. *Page 1226 See Cladd v. State , 398 So.2d 442 , 443 (Fla. 1981) (husband who had been separated from wife for six months with no formal separation agreement or restraining order had no ownership or possessory interest in wife's apartment and could be charged with burglary, expressly overruling Vazquez v. State , 350 So.2d 1094 (Fla.App. 1977), which held that the husband had a legal right to be with his wife on the premises occupied by her at the time of entry); Matthews v. Commonwealth , 709 S.W.2d 414 , 420 (Ky. 1985) cert. denied , 479 U.S. 871 , 107 S.Ct. 245 , 93 L.Ed.2d 170 (1986) (husband who was under a court order in conn”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 587 So. 2d 1218 - White v. State

2. “[Under] 343(c)(3) ... it is a defense that the property involved was that of the defendant spouse, unless the parties were not living together as man and wife and were living in separate abodes at the time of the alleged theft. The evidence with respect to the first prong, whether or not the parties were living together as man and wife, the Court is prepared to find as a matter of law that he had kicked her out, that she was elsewhere for at least eight days. Notwithstanding the fact that they had sex on the evening in question, the evidence is clear to the Court that they were not living together as man and wife. The second prong, abodes, I am looking at the dictionary. Webster’s College Dictionary defines abode as a place in which a person resides, a residence, a dwelling, a home. Ms. Bradshaw was residing at various places, but I suppose particularly at the Webbs’ for the longest period of time between the time she was kicked out and the day in question, September 29th. The plain reading of the statute to the Court and the plain use of the words that the statute uses indicates to the Court that they were not living together as man and wife and they were in fact living in separate abodes. Further, based on the Court’s interpretation of the statute and research, that the statutory intent would restrict— mandates a restriction of the statutory application of the crime of theft and does not extend to crimes such as count 1, felony murder, based on the robbery felony, and count”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Md. App. 54 - Bradshaw v. State