100 Cal. App. 3d 333 - People v. Yoder’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 163 Cal. App. 4th 1082 - People v. Ramos (2008), 210 Cal. App. 3d 414 - People v. Anderson (1989)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 25 Cal. 3d 668 - People v. Flannel · People v. Ford · 22 Cal. 3d 318 - People v. Wetmore · 47 Cal. App. 3d 976 - People v. Romo · 21 Cal. App. 3d 10 - People v. Rhodes
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In 1982, the Legislature amended section 22 to provide, as relevant: ‘(a) No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. Evidence of voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any mental states for the crimes charged, including, but not limited to, purpose, intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation or malice aforethought, with which the accused committed the act. “ ‘(b) Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent, premeditated, deliberated, or harbored malice aforethought, when a specific intent crime is charged.’ (Stats. 1982, ch. 893, § 2, pp. 3317-3318.) The Legislature stated that the 1982 amendment was ‘declaratory of existing law.’ (Stats. 1982, ch. 893, § 5, p. 3318.) “Most recently, in 1995, effective January 1, 1996, the Legislature amended section 22 to provide, as relevant: ‘(a) No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his or her having been in that condition. Evidence of voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any mental states for the crimes charged, including, but not limited to, purpose, intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation, or malice aforethought, with which the accused committed the act. “ ‘(b) Evidence of voluntary intoxication ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Voluntary Intoxication—When Relevant to Specific Intent [H] • • • [H] If the evidence shows that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime, you should consider that fact in deciding whether defendant had the required [specific intent] [mental state]. “If from all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant formed that [specific intent] [mental state[s]], you must find that [he] [she] did not have that [specific intent] [mental state[s]].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.