8 Md. App. 598 - Wiggins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably 28 Md. App. 640 - Evans v. State (1975), Lightfoot v. State (1976)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · Midgett v. State · Hadder v. State · 2 Md. App. 80 - Boone v. State · Wood v. State
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An attempt to commit a crime is an act done in pursuance of a criminal intent falling short of the actual commission of the crime, coupled, at least, with the apparent ability to commit the crime intended. Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200 ; Makins v. State, 6 Md. App. 466 ; Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 80 . So attempted robbery may be predicated upon a finding of intent to steal goods from the person of another by violence but without the consummation of the larceny. See Thompson v. State, 5 Md. App. 191 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Another element of larceny is the larcenous intent; so every robbery embraces a larcenous intent. This means that every robber must intend to steal the property taken. The crucial ingredient of larcenous intent is that the intent be to deprive the owner (within the applicable definition of that term, see Kyle v. State, 6 Md. App. 159 , Frazier v. State, 5 Md. App. 88 ) permanently of his property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In short, the finding of the requisite intent was a matter for the trier of fact. See Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md. App. 597, 601 . Intent to steal is subjective; it need not be directly and objectively demonstrated but may be inferred from a totality of the circumstances. Johnson v. State, 5 Md. App. 540, 545; Moore v. State, 3 Md. App. 676, 679 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.