State v. Crail’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court instructed the jury on August 18, 1999. Instruction No. 18 read as follows: As to Count I, in order for you to find [Crail] guilty of the offense of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, you must unanimously answer at least one of the following questions with a "yes" response on the special interrogatory form which will be provided to you: Did you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Crail] was in actual or constructive possession of any one of the following: 1. State's Exhibit 1-methamphetamine found in the glass cylindrical pipe located inside of jeans shorts in the bathroom of bedroom # 1. Yes_____No_____ 2. State's Exhibit 2-methamphetamine found in five ziploc packets that were in a larger ziploc bag, located on the folding mattress in bedroom # 1. Yes_____No_____ 3. State's Exhibit 3-methamphetamine found in four ziploc packets that were in a plastic container located under the mattress near the small refrigerator in bedroom # 1. Yes_____No_____ 4. State's Exhibit 4-methamphetamine found on the Calibron twin beam scale, located on the top of the refrigerator in bedroom # 1. Yes_____No_____ If you are not unanimous in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that [Crail] was in either actual or constructive possession of at least one of the above listed items, then you must find [Crail] not guilty of the offense of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree. (Emphases added.) In a similar vein, the court instructed the jury regarding Count II”

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

2. “In reviewing a constitutional due process claim of prejudice engendered by preindictment delay, “the ‘due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay in prosecution as well as the prejudice to the accused.’ ” Therefore, a balancing approach is applied, weighing the “substantial prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial” against “the reasons for the delay[.]””

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

3. “direction . . . as to the places from which the exhibits were recovered or located, as opposed only to the identification of the exhibits”

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