McInturff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The key to analyzing this issue is identification of independent and complete transactions which violate 6-8-408(a)(1). Each distinet transaction should be separately charged and may not be combined with other independent offenses in the state's proof, The record before us reveals that Meclnturff was involved in several distinct transactions. There were at least two separate receipts, several concealments, and multiple disposals of stolen property. It may be acceptable to charge a defendant with a single count which employs the language of the statute and does not include any underlying facts, as was done in the amended information. However, this method then limits the state to proving only a single complete act in violation of the statute for each generally stated count, even though, as here, there may have been multiple offenses in separate acts of receipt, concealment and disposal. The state may elect which alternate definition [or act] it intends to prove after filing the information so long as its focus can be discerned from "the bill of particulars, opening statement, proofs and instructions to the jury." In this case it is not possible to identify the state's focus, as the bill of particulars and the evidence went to all three definitions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schuler v. State

2. “INSTRUCTION NO. 7 The elements of the crime of Credit Card Fraud, as charged in Count Three of this case, are: 1. On or about the 1st day of April, 2005, through on or about the 12th day of April, 2005 2. In Natrona County, Wyoming 3. The Defendant, Clint Patrick Schuler 4. With intent to obtain property or services by fraud 5. [Used] a credit card or the number or description of a credit card 6. Issued to another person 7. Without the consent of that person; and 8. The value of the property obtained was $1,000 or more. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schuler v. State

3. “Secondly, the amended information im-permissibly combines several separate and independent offenses into one count. Even if there was no issue of improper amendment the information as amended would be void for duplicity on this basis. Edelhoff v. State, 5 Wyo. 19 , 36 P. 627 (1894). This court has said that “[n]o man should be tried or convicted for several offenses when he is charged with but one.” Edelhoff, 5 Wyo. at 33 , 36 P. at 632 . That is precisely what happened to Mclnturff as the result of the amended information and its supplemental bill of particulars. McInturff, charged with a single count in violation of W.S. 6-3-403(a)(i), was actually convicted for the aggregate of several separate and distinct violations of that statute, as is evident from the state’s bill of particulars and proof at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State