Lahr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law of theft and larceny has been recodified and its language has been simplified, but proof of the specific crime charged must still be made and tested against the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Powell v. State · Guerrero v. State

2. “INSTRUCTION NO.- YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that the elements of the offense that the Defendant is charged with are as follows: 1. That on or about March 22, 1993, through March 29, 1993, 2. In Natrona County, Wyoming, B. The Defendant, Charis Gilliam, and one or more persons, 4. agreed to deliver a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana. 5. That Charis Gilliam knew at least the essential objectives of the alleged conspiracy, 6. That Charis Gilliam knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the alleged conspiracy, and 7. That the alleged co-conspirators were interdependent. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty. INSTRUCTION NO.- YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that the conduct of the alleged co-conspirators[ ] may be diverse and far-ranging, but it must be interdependent in some way. Interdependence is present when each alleged co-conspirator depends on the operation of each link in the chain to achieve a common goal. In essence, the defendant’s action must facilitate the endeavors of other alleged co-conspirators or facilitate the venture as a whole. A single conspiracy does not exist solely because many individuals deal with a common central player; they must be inter”

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