State v. Schulz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although the accused may not be required to assume a burden of persuasion relative to his ‘defense’ of intoxication, this is not to say that in every case the state must prove the absence of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. The principles of due process are not violated if a burden of production — as opposed to a burden of persuasion — is placed upon the accused to come forward with ‘some’ evidence in rebuttal of the state’s case. ... In order to place intoxication in issue in a given case, it will be necessary for the defendant to come forward with some evidence of Ms impaired condition. TMs evidence must be more than a mere statement that the defendant was intoxicated. The evidence must be credible and sufficient to warrant the jury’s consideration of the issue as to whether the defendant was intoxicated to the extent it materially affected his or her ability to form the requisite intent. The test which the trial court must apply is whether, construing all the evidence produced most favorably to the defendant, a reasonable juror could conclude that the defendant’s state of intoxication — in the words of the statute — ‘negative [d] the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime.’ ” 102 Wis. 2d at 430 . Citations omitted.)”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 Wis. 2d 110 - State v. Holt · State v. Austin

2. ““The defense of intoxication or a drug condition is an issue in this case. The Criminal Code of Wisconsin provides that an intoxicated condition or a drug condition is a defense if such condition negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime. Ordinarily, intoxication or a drug condition, will not relieve a person from, responsibility for his criminal acts. However, where a certain state of mind or intent is an essential element of the crime, an accused is not guilty if at the time of the commission of the alleged criminal act he was so intoxi cated or drugged that he was unable to form the essential intent or have the essential mental state. “In this case, the defendant is charged with the crimes of intentionally aiding and abetting the commission of murder in the first degree and armed robbery. One of the essential elements of intentional aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is knowledge or belief on the part of the aider and abettor that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime. An additional element of intentionally aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is that the aider and abettor knowingly either renders aid to the person who commits the crime or is ready and willing to render aid if neéded, and the person who commits the crime knows of his willingness to aid him. “The defendant claims that at the time of the alleged offenses the condition from the use of intoxicating liquor and drugs was such that he had no knowledg”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 109 Wis. 2d 324 - Barrera v. State · 108 Wis. 2d 499 - State v. Reynosa

3. “a reasonable juror could misinterpret the instructions to the detriment of a defendant's due process rights.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 205 Wis. 2d 183 - State v. Lohmeier · 219 Wis. 2d 65 - State v. Dodson