State v. Keffer’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Woodward (1998), Chapman v. State (2001)
72 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Benton v. Maryland · Brown v. Ohio
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 'Under this test, one offense is not "nee-essarily included" in another unless the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. Where the lesser offense requires an element not required for the greater offense, no instruction is to be given under [Wyoming Rule 31(0)]) "”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant contends that the elements of an attempt and second-degree murder are mutually exelusive and/or logically impossible, because an attempt requires that one act with a specific intent, while second-degree murder only requires that one act with a general intent.... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-801 states, in pertinent part: (a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if; (i) With the intent to commit the crime, he does any act which is a substantial step towards commission of the erime. A "substantial step" is conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the person's intention to complete the commission of the crime{.] According to Wyo. Stat, Ann. § 6-2-104, "[wlhoever purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation, kills any human being is guilty of murder in the second degree...." - Appellant's claimed "logical impossibility" arises from the "intent" elements of these respective statutes. In the past, crimes have commonly been categorized by whether they require a "specific intent" or a "general intent." For many years, Wyoming had several pattern jury instructions defining and explaining the two terms, and yet, the differences between the concepts were not always readily discernible. Realizing that the distinction between a specific intent crime and a general intent crime is apparently troublesome, we can perhaps clarify it by stating it in a somewhat different way. When the statute sets out the offense with only a description of the particul”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.