8 Md. App. 20 - McCarson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellant also contends that the court erred in announcing its preliminary decision in the presence of the jury, in that by so doing it usurped a function of the jury. At the close of the evidence received out of the presence of the jury, the judge announced his decision in the jury’s presence. The transcript reads: ‘(The jury returned to the jury box, and the following transpired in the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: I will rule the statement is voluntary and admissible. Of course, you have your exception. MR. WILSON (defense counsel): Yes, sir.’ In the circumstances, considering the appellant’s failure to contradict or refute the evidence that the confession was voluntary, to object to its admission and to request instructions on the issue, we see no prejudicial error requiring reversal. The instant case is readily distinguishable on the facts from Barnhart v. State, 5 Md. App. 222 , where the judge, after hearing evidence without the jury, indicated to the jury that he had found the confession voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, and told the jury in admitting the confession after the evidence was received in their presence that it was his opinion that the testimony showed ‘conclusively that it was freely and voluntarily given.’ ” (Italics supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 Md. App. 8 - Dempsey v. State

2. ““[A] conviction of larceny of an automobile is inconsistent with a conviction of unauthorized use of that automobile. An element of larceny of an automobile is the intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently while as to unauthorized use the intent is to deprive the owner of his custody or use of his property temporarily without intent to steal it. Anderson v. State, 3 Md. App. 85 ; Johnson v. State, 2 Md. App. 486 . It is patent that an automobile cannot be taken with the intent both to steal it and not to steal it.” Id. at 22.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henry v. State