Cornwall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To convict the defendant of the crime of custodial interference in the first degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That the defendant is a relative of [O.J.B-P.], a child under the age of eighteen; (2) That on or about the period of time intervening between May 31, 2006 through August 22, 2006, the defendant, with the intent to deny access to [O.J.B-P.] by an institution, agency or person having a lawful right to the physical custody of such person, took, enticed, retained, detained, or concealed [O.J.B-P.] from an institution, agency or person having a lawful right to the physical custody of such person and intended to hold [O.J.B-P.] permanently or for a protracted period; and (3) That any of the acts occurred in the State of Washington.”

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

2. “[tlhe legal effect of the superior court's custody orders was an issue of law to be decided by the trial judge 23 Busby's case is governed by this latter rule. Busby's understanding of the legal effect of his international driving permit-specifically, how that permit related to his revoked Alaska driver's license, and whether it authorized him to drive in Alaska despite his license revocation-was not an element of the offense. Rather, this was an issue of law to be decided by his trial judge. The trial judge committed error when she allowed Busby to offer any testimony on this issue at all-but the error ran in Busby's favor. For these same reasons, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that even if Busby believed that his act of driving with a revoked license was lawful, this was no defense. Busby's third and final claim is that the trial judge should not have instructed the jury on "motive”

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

3. “[In a jury trial, issues of law are decided by the judge, not the jury. It is the jury's role to decide the facts of the case, but it is the judge's role to instruct the jury on the legal significance of the facts. Therefore, when lawyers disagree concerning the law that governs a case, they offer arguments to the trial judge, not to the jury.”

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