State v. Doolittle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person is responsible for his own conduct and h'e is also responsible for the conduct of another person in committing an offense if he acts with the other person with the common purpose of committing that offense or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the, other person in committing it. If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about July 16, 2010, in the County of Saline, State of Missouri, the defendant or [Maldonado] possessed 90 grams or more of any material or mixture containing any quantity of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and Second, that defendant knew or was aware of the presence and nature of the controlled substance, then you are instructed that the offense of trafficking in the - second degree has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that trafficking in the second degree, the defendant acted together with or aided [Maldonado] in committed that offense, then you will find the defendant guilty of trafficking the second degree.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres · State v. Hayes

2. “[a]n appellate court will be more inclined to reverse in cases where the erroneous instruction ‘did not merely allow a wrong word or some other ambiguity to exist, [but] excused the State from its burden of proof on [a] contested element of the crime.’ Additionally, this court has previously held that where a verdict director effectively omits an essential element of the offense, such an instruction rises to the level of plain error if the evidence in the case fails to establish the existence of the omitted element ‘beyond serious dispute.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. January · State v. Rhymer

3. “A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is also responsible for the conduct of another person in committing an offense if he acts with the other person with the common purpose of committing that offense or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the other person in committing it. As to Count 1, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about June 8, 2007, in the County of St. Charles, State of Missouri, the defendant or Cleo Hines caused the death of Robert Eidman by shooting him, and Second, that defendant or Cleo Hines knew that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of Robert Eidman, then you are instructed that the offense of murder in the first degree has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the death of Robert Eidman, the defendant acted alone, acted together with or aided Cleo Hines in causing the death of Robert Eidman and did so after deliberation, which means cool reflection upon the matter for any length of time no matter how brief, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count 1 of murder in the first degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of the propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense.”

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