State v. McMasters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) A person commits an offense under this section if, with purpose to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for an offense, he: “(1) Harbors or conceals such person; or “(2) Provides or aids in providing the person with a weapon, money, transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding apprehension, discovery, or effecting escape; or “(3) Prevents or obstructs anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery, apprehension, or identification of the person by means of force, intimidation, or the threat of such, or by means of deception; or “(4) Conceals, alters, destroys, or otherwise suppresses the discovery of any fact, information, or other thing related to the crime which might aid in the discovexy, apprehension, or identification of the person; or “(5) Warns the person of impending discovery, apprehension, or identification; or “(6) Volunteers false information to a law enforcement officer.””

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

2. “There is no question that defendant lied to the police concerning the location of [the suspect,] Cowart. But the statute does not make lying alone a crime. The deception must prevent or obstruct the police from performing an act aiding in the discovery or apprehension of Cowart. There is no evidence in the record that defendant’s statement had any effect at all on the police conduct. They did not divert their surveillance or attempt to locate Cowart at a different location. There is no testimony that[,] had defendant told them of Cowart’s loeation[,] they would have conducted themselves any differently than they did.... The officers testified they placed no reliance on defendant’s statement, they did nothing different, and they were not obstructed or prevented from doing anything by the statement. In short, there was no evidence that the police were prevented or obstructed from doing anything by defendant’s lie.”

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

3. “[T]here is no evidence in the record that Budik’s false statements ... prevented or obstructed any act. [Subsection (4) of our statute covers] “deception” that “[prevents or obstructs” certain acts.... The relevant question therefore becomes whether some act would have been performed but for the [defendant’s] false statement. If not, it cannot be said that the [defendant’s] deception prevented or obstructed an act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension of another person. [[Image here]] There is simply no evidence in the record that[,] but for Budik’s false disavowal of knowledge of the identity of the shooters[,] anyone would have “perform[ed] an [additional] act that might aid in the discovery or apprehension” of one of the shooters.... [Thus], there is no evidence that Budik’s deception ... caused the prevention or obstruction of any act.”

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