State v. Pereira’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘(1) [The defendant] may become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses; (2) the jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from which it found his guilt of the other crime or crimes charged; or (3) the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if considered separately, it would not so find.’ ” Rivera, 987 A.2d at 900 (quoting Pereira, 973 A.2d at 28 ).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. CIRESI · State v. Rivera

2. “"[i]f it appears that a defendant or the State is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information, or complaint or by such joinder for trial ■ together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. CIRESI · State v. Goulet

3. “is aimed at laws that 'retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.' " California Department of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U.S. 499 , 504, 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (quoting Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37 , 43, 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ). Likewise, we have "held that a violation of the ex post facto clause occurs when there is a 'retrospective application of law that disadvantages an offender by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.' " State v. Pereira , 973 A.2d 19 , 32 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Town of West Warwick v. Local 1104, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC , 745 A.2d 786 , 788 (R.I. 2000) ). 17 "It is black letter law that the ex post facto clause in both our state and federal constitutions only prohibit retroactive penal legislation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Frederick Gibson Frederick Gibson v. State of Rhode Island