89 Ind. App. 125 - Terrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is contended by appellant that this evidence shows that he was induced to commit the offense by the wrongful acts of the sheriff, and that his conviction was contrary to law. In other words, he claims the defense of entrapment. The exact question was before the Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Simmons v. People (1921), 70 Colo. 262 , 199 Pac. 416 . In that case, as in the case at bar, the prosecuting witness had been given money by the sheriff, with instructions to purchase intoxicating liquor from defendant, and there, as here, the defense of the accused was that he had been induced to commit the crime by entrapment. The court correctly held that there ‘was no such entrapment or instigation as to prevent the defendant’s act from being criminal.’ To the same effect, see Shacklett v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 323 , 150 N. E. 758 ; Ramsey v. United States (1920), 268 Fed. 825 ; Reyff v. United States (1924), 2 Fed. (2d) 39; State v. See (1916), 177 Iowa 316 , 158 N. W. 667 ; State v. Driscoll (1925), 119 Kans. 473 , 239 Pac. 1105 ; Cooke v. Commonwealth (1923), 199 Ky. 111 , 250 S. W. 802 ; People v. England (1923), 221 Mich. 607 , 192 N. W. 612 ; DeGraff v. State (1909), 2 Okla. Crim. 519 , 103 Pac. 538 ; Bauer v. Commonwealth (1923), 135 Va. 453 , 114 S. E. 514 . There is nothing whatever in the evidence to indicate that the sheriff resorted to the device to induce an innocent man to commit a crime, so as to bring the case within the entrapment rule. Appellant had t”

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