80 Or. App. 54 - State v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Defendant's contention that intentional murder is a lesser-included offense of aggravated felony murder is premised on the fact that, because intent is an element of aggravated felony murder, all of the elements of intentional murder are necessarily included in the commission of the aggravated offense. With that contention we have no quarrel. See State v. Coutier, 286 Or. 579 , 596 P.2d 1278 (1979); Riley v. Cupp, 56 Or App 467 , 472 n 6, 642 P2d 333 , rev den 293 Or 146 [ 651 P.2d 143 ] (1982). Therefore, the state's failure to prove all of the elements necessary to convict an accused of intentional murder precludes a conviction for aggravated felony murder. It does not, however, preclude a conviction for felony murder, which is also a lesser-included offense of aggravated murder and for which extreme emotional disturbance is no defense. See State v. Reams [ 47 Or App 907 , 616 P2d 498 (1980), aff'd 292 Or 1 , 636 P2d 913 (1981)]. Therefore, if extreme emotional disturbance may be asserted as an affirmative defense to aggravated felony murder, because intentional murder is a lesser-included offense of that crime, then a defendant who successfully asserts the defense would be guilty of felony murder only, not aggravated felony murder." (Footnote omitted.) [3]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Or. App. 113 - State v. Hessel

2. “"[C]riminal homicide constitutes murder: "(a) When it is committed intentionally, except that it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the homicide, the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance[.]"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Or. App. 113 - State v. Hessel

3. “"although the legislature has expressly provided that defendants charged with intentional murder under ORS 163.115(1)(a) may assert the affirmative defense, it has not so provided for defendants charged with aggravated murder."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Or. App. 113 - State v. Hessel