State v. Kreck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 6 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. ““(1) Experts or professional persons who have reported pursuant to this chapter may be called as witnesses. Both the prosecution and the defendant may summon any other qualified expert or professional persons to testify, but no one who has not examined the defendant outside of court shall be competent to testify to an expert opinion with respect to the mental condition or responsibility of the defendant, as distinguished from the validity of the procedure followed by, or the general scientific propositions stated by, another witness. “(2) Experts or professional persons who have examined the defendant and who have been called as witnesses concerning his mental condition shall be permitted to make a statement as to the nature of his examination, his diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense charged and his opinion as to the extent, if any, the defendant lacked capacity either (1) to know or appreciate the nature and consequence of such conduct; or (2) to know or appreciate the criminality of such conduct. He shall be permitted to make any explanation reasonably serving to clarify his diagnosis and opinion and may be cross-examined as to any matter bearing on his competency or credibility or the validity of his diagnosis or opinion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kreck v. Spalding

2. “(1) With intent to injure, shall unlawfully administer to or cause to be taken by another, poison or any other destructive or noxious thing, or any drug or medicine the use of which is dangerous to life or health; or (2) With intent thereby to enable or assist himself or any other person to commit any crime, shall administer to, or cause to be taken by, another, chloroform, ether, laudanum or any other intoxicating narcotic or anesthetic; or (3) Shall wilfully inflict grievous bodily harm upon another with or without a weapon; or (4) Shall wilfully assault another with a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm; or (5) Being armed with a deadly weapon shall wilfully assault another with a whip; or (6) Shall assault another with intent to commit a felony, or to prevent or resist the execution of any lawful process or mandate of any court officer, or the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or another person; or (7) While hunting any game or other animals or birds, shall shoot another; Shall be guilty of assault in the second degree and be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kreck v. Spalding

3. “[T]he [United States] Supreme Court on more than one occasion has expressly rejected the idea that the hearsay rule and the right of confrontation are simply different ways of stating the same thing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kreck v. Spalding