State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[We use] the Supreme Court’s “same elements” test for determining whether the separate provisions charge the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy. Under this analysis, two statutes do not charge the same offense if “each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . But more than the statutory elements are relevant in conducting a “same elements” test. The elements contained in the charging instruments, rather than the penal provisions, are controlling.”

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

2. “While Parrish, supra, does not make this distinction, it is logical to compare statutory elements in the multiple punishments context where Blockburger is a rule of statutory construction to be used in determining legislative intent, but compare charging instrument elements in the successive prosecutions context where there are two charging instruments to examine and where the underlying policy is to prevent retrying a defendant for something he has already been tried for.”

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

3. “While different policy considerations are at issue in the two contexts (successive prosecutions versus multiple punishments), a threshold question in either case is whether the defendant is being punished or prosecuted for the 'same offense.'”

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