State v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Not all out-of-court statements are hearsay. The hearsay rule only prohibits admission of evidence of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the out-of-court declaration. Defendant overlooks the well-established `verbal acts' rule. Utterances made contemporaneously with or immediately preparatory to an act which is material to the litigation that tends to explain, illustrate or show the object or motive of an equivocal act and which are offered irrespective of the truth of any assertion they contain, are not hearsay and are admissible.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Charger · State v. Kelley

2. “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 him 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 I, if you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you must consider whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree. If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about September 14, 1995, in the County Andrew, State of Missouri, the defendant caused the death of Ronald Munsterman by beating and stabbing him, and Second, that the defendant was aware that his conduct was causing the death of Ronald Munsterman, or that it was the defendant’s purpose to cause the death of Ronald Mun-sterman, then you are instructed that the offense of murder in the second degree has occurred, and if you further find and be lieve from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that murder in the second degree, the defendant acted together with Paul Ham in committing that offense, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of murder in the second degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the second de”

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

3. “(1) To determine whether the defendant lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense as provided in section 552.020; (2) To determine whether the defendant is criminally responsible as provided in section 552.030; (3) To determine whether a person committed to the director of the department of mental health pursuant to this chapter shall be released as provided in section 552.040; (4) To determine if a person in the custody of any correctional institution needs care in a mental hospital as provided in section 552.050; (5) To determine whether a person condemned to death shall be executed as provided in sections 552.060 and 552.070; (6) To determine whether or not the defendant, if found guilty, should be sentenced to death as provided in chapter 558, RSMo; (7) To determine the appropriate disposition of a defendant, if guilty, as provided in sections 557.011 and 557.031, RSMo; (8) To prove that the defendant did or did not have the state of mind which is an element of the offense; (9) To determine if the defendant, if found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, should be immediately conditionally released by the court under the provisions of section 552.040 to the community or committed to a mental health or mental retardation facility....”

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