DeSpain v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2018
16 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 · Missouri v. Hunter · United States v. Dixon · Grady v. Corbin · Lambert v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he first [goal] is to determine whether the offenses have identical elements, and the second is to determine if some elements of either offense are identical to those of the other. In either instance, concerns about double jeopardy are implicated because a second prosecution and sentence for the identical crime or a second prosecution and sentence for a lesser-included crime are proscribed by the double jeopardy clauses of both our state and federal constitutions. The essence of this test is that, when the elements or the facts of a charged offense make it separate and distinct from another charged offense, then the intention of the legislature to authorize separate or cumulative punishments for both offenses is presumed. In such an instance, the trial court can lawfully impose separate and cumulative sentences if the defendant is convicted of both crimes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vena v. State · Owen v. State““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 an additional fact which the other does not.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McDermott v. State · Owen v. State“1. The crime occurred in Laramie County on or about March 20, 1992, and; 2. The defendant unlawfully and feloniously 3. Threatened to use 4. A drawn deadly weapon 5. Upon [T] 6. Which was not reasonably necessary in defence of his person property or abode or to prevent serious bodily injury to another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDermott v. State
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.