Gregory v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] double jeopardy violation occurs when judgments of conviction are entered and cannot be remedied by the practical effect' of concurrent sentences or by merger after convietion has been entered”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Calvert v. State · Lay v. State

2. ““The purpose of voir dire is to determine whether a prospective juror can render a fair and impartial verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence.” Joyner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 232, 237 (Ind.2000). More specifically, such examination of prospective jurors is used to discover whether a prospective juror has any opinion, belief, or bias which would affect or control his determination of the issues to be tried, providing a basis to exercise the right of challenge either peremptory or for cause. Holmes v. State, 671 N.E.2d 841, 854 (Ind.1996). However, our Supreme Court has condemned the practice of counsel utilizing voir dire as an opportunity to “ ‘brainwash’ or attempt to condition the jurors to receive the evidence with a jaundiced eye.” Robinson v. State, 266 Ind. 604, 610 , 365 N.E.2d 1218, 1222 (1977). Questions that examine jurors as to how they would act or decide in certain contingencies or when presented with certain evidence are improper. Perryman v. State, 830 N.E.2d 1005, 1008 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). However, proper examination may include questions designed to disclose the jurors’ attitudes about the type of offense charged. Id. The parties may also attempt to uncover the jurors’ precon ceived ideas about a defense the defendant intends to use. Id. To reveal the jurors’ attitudes and ideas, the parties may pose hypothetical questions, provided they do not suggest prejudicial evidence not adduced at trial. Id.”

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

3. “a merged offense for which a defendant is found guilty, but on which there is neither a judgment nor a sentence, is 'unproblematic’ as .far as double jeopardy is concerned”). Because the record reveals that the trial court entered judgment of conviction on Counts II and IV prior to merging these convictions, we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to vacate Guffey’s judgment of convictions on Count II and Count IV. We also remand this cause for the trial court to correct its sentencing as it relates to the habitual offender enhancement. It is well settled that an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tracy D. Guffey v. State of Indiana