9 Neb. Ct. App. 230 - State v. Ybarra’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “[T]his changes a Supreme Court or corrects what happened with a Supreme Court decision and that is that right now ... the law had previously been assumed to be that when you get charged with a... with a theft, one of the elements of that offense that the prosecution has to prove . . . and, remember, we’re dealing with criminal statutes, so these are things that the prosecution will have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the things that the court . . . that the court changed or changed whatever they assumed was the law was that value is something that had to be proven. It’s clearly, I think, or the policy should be that that is an element of the offense. If someone is charged with a felony, as it currently stands, since the Supreme Court decision, as it currently stands, the prosecution need not prove that the value was in excess of $300, even though that’s what the statutes require. The statutes require that it be . . . have a value in excess of $300. Because the Supreme Court has interpreted the statutes in that direction, I believe this change is necessitated. What the second half of this amendment then would do is that it would simply require that value is an essential element of the offense that has to be proved. Basically, that part of the amendment would return us back to where, I believe, we thought we were prior to that decision.”

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

2. “the judge did not have the authority to reduce the conviction from a Class IV felony to a Class II misdemeanor based upon the insufficiency of evidence as to the value of the goods taken. The State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove value, an essential element of theft by shoplifting property for more than $500 but less than $1,500. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand this cause with directions to dismiss.”

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