Tomomitsu v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “separate acts were charged by the State and admitted to by Tomomitsu. Count III regarding robbery referred to theft as the taking and carrying away of the camera and wristwatch from Alricson. The relevant facts were To-momilsu's threat of force by exposure of a weapon and the taking of property from Alric-son's person or presence. In contrast, Counts I and II referred to the thefts as the disposal of the stolen items at different times. The relevant facts were the actual disposal of stolen property on specific dates to an undercover detective. ... The colloquy between Tomomitsu, the court, and attorneys confirmed the sale of the camera equipment and watch at different times and apparently at a place other than that of the robbery. Hence, the criminal acts of the robbery and each theft were supported by different factual evidence and separated by time and space.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Feliciano

2. “patently frivolous and without a trace of support either in the record or from other evidence submitted by [petitioner]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fragiao v. State

3. “has not expressly indicated which test applies under the Hawai'i Constitution in the multiple punishments situation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Feliciano