905 So. 2d 655 - Dambrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “In discussing Dambrell's motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge noted that the weapon was not exhibited because Waters never saw the weapon until Dambrell had disposed of it. The State chose to track the language of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-79 in its indictment. By doing so, the State obligated itself to prove that Dambrell exhibited a deadly weapon to Waters, and that as a result of that exhibition, Waters was placed in fear of immediate injury to his person. The State was obligated to establish that any fear of Waters flowed directly from, and was occasioned by his awareness of the existence of the weapon. Mere assumption that a deadly weapon exists is not enough, the victim must have definitive knowledge that such deadly weapon does in fact exist to support a conviction under a standard of reasonable doubt. Gibby v. State, 744 So.2d 244, 245 (¶ 8) (Miss.1999). Where the State has failed to establish that a weapon was exhibited, then of necessity it has also failed to establish that the victim was placed in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a weapon. Our review of the record leads to the unavoidable conclusion that it does not contain proof of every essential fact alleged in the indictment. Therefore, it contains insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable person might have found Dambrell guilty pursuant to the indictment against him. Where the State has failed to prove each and every essential element of the indictment as ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 681 - Dambrell v. State

2. “STATE: Mr. Waters, when the Defendant walked, this is in response to the Judge's question, the Defendant walked in with the towel, was the knife wrapped up in the towel like this? WATERS: Yes, sir. It was all wrapped up where you couldn't see it. STATE: Okay. What did you—what went through your mind when you saw this? WATERS: I assumed he had a weapon in his hand is what I assumed. STATE: Okay. So did the fact that it was wrapped in a towel as opposed to being out like this, did that change your fear factor? WATERS: No, uh uh (indicating negative). STATE: So you were just as afraid — WATERS: Well, I knew he had a weapon that's what, that's what— STATE: That meant weapon to you, did it not? WATERS: Yes, sir.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 681 - Dambrell v. State

3. “THE COURT: I have a question. Mr. Waters, you indicated that when he [Dambrell] walked in he had the towel and— WATERS: The towel, he had the knife wrapped up in the towel, so I never did actually see the knife until after he slung it. THE COURT: So he came in and he had the towel and— WATERS: Wrapped around the knife. THE COURT: That's all? WATERS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Could you tell what it was? WATERS: Not at that point, no, sir. I didn't know until he slung it. That's when I knew he had a knife. THE COURT: So when he slung it the towel and the knife went off in the same direction? WATERS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That's when you realized he had a weapon? WATERS: Yes, sir.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 681 - Dambrell v. State