State v. Vinge’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. “Method of prosecution when conduct establishes an element of more than one offense. (1) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish an element of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each offense of which such conduct is an element. He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if: (a) One offense is included in the other, as defined in subsection (4) of this section; .... (4) A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment or the information. An offense is so included when: (a) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; ... [7]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Christian · Tomomitsu v. State

2. “[T]he burden of proof is on the prosecution with reference to every element of a crime charged, and this burden includes the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the defendant as the person responsible for the crime charged. You have heard eyewitness testimony identifying the defendant. As with any other witness, you must decide whether an eyewitness gave accurate testimony. In evaluating identification testimony, consider the following factors: The opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act and the perpetrator of the act; The stress, if any, to which the witness was subject at the time of the observation; The witness’ ability, following the observation, to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act; The extent to which the defendant fits or does not fit the description of the perpetrator previously given by the witness; The cross-racial or ethnic nature of the identification; The witness’ capacity to make an identification; [Evidence relating to the witness’ ability to identify other alleged perpetrators of the criminal act;] 21 [Whether the witness was able to identify the alleged perpetrator in a photographic or physical lineup;] The period of time between the alleged criminal act and the witness’ identification; Whether the witness had prior contacts with the alleged perpetrator; The extent to which the witness is either certain or uncertain of the identification; Whether the witness identification is in fact the product”

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

3. “in order for the prosecution to prove that a defendant committed robbery in the first degree, the prosecution must also prove— as an element of first degree robbery—all the elements of theft or attempted theft. Therefore, because (1) theft is an element of first degree robbery, (2) a defendant cannot commit first degree robbery without committing theft or attempted theft, and (3) attempted theft is an included offense of theft, see HRS § 701-109(4)(b), we hold that theft and attempted theft, regardless of degree, are included offenses of first degree robbery.”

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