Aplin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is clear that section (b) of our [attempt] statute rejects the defense of impossibility. It is not necessary that there be a present ability to complete the crime, nor is it necessary that the crime be factually possible. When the defendant has done all that he believes necessary to cause the particular result, regardless of what is actually possible under existing cirewmstances, he has committed an attempt. The liability of the defendant turns on his purpose as manifested through his conduct. If the defendant's conduct, in light of all the relevant facts involved, constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime and is done with the necessary specific intent, then the defendant has committed an attempt. Previous Indiana cases have sometimes narrowly interpreted an attempt as conduct " 'which will apparently result in the crime, unless interrupted by circumstances independent of the doer's will'" However, the new statute shows that this interpretation focusing on the result of the conduct is no longer applicable and that the law now focuses on the substantial step that the defendant has completed, not on what was left undone.”

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

2. “The State charged that Aplin violated that statutory provision [sexual misconduct with a minor] when he attempted to engage in deviate sexual conduct with Dan Claasen.[ 8 ] If proven, this did not constitute the offense of attempted Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, because Detective Claasen is an adult. This conviction must be reversed due to insufficient evidence. As discussed below, the appropriate charge in these circumstances is that of Child Solicitation, whereby the State need not prove the actual age of the victim but may prove the solicitor’s belief that the solicitee is a minor.”

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

3. “The State charged that Aplin violated that statutory provision [sexual misconduct with a minor] when he attempted to engage in deviate sexual conduct with Dan Claasen."** If proven, this did not constitute the offense of attempted Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, because Detective Claasen is an adult. This conviction must be reversed due to insufficient evidence. As discussed below, the appropriate charge in these cireum-stances is that of Child Solicitation, whereby the State need not prove the actual age of the victim but may prove the solicitor's belief that the solicitee is a minor.”

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