State v. Goble’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when he or she is aware of a fact, circumstance or result described by law as being a crime, whether or not the person is aware that the fact, circumstance or result is a crime. If a person has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which are described by law as being a crime, the jury is permitted but not required to find that he or she acted with knowledge.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Van Atkins · State v. Hayward

2. “conflated the intent and knowledge elements required under the to-convict instruction into a single element and relieved the State of its burden of proving that Goble knew [the officer's] status if it found the assault was intentional.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Keend · State v. Hayward

3. “instructions for delivery of a controlled substance required the jury to find three elements: To convict the Defendant, Richard Edward Sibert, ... each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on [a certain date] the Defendant delivered a controlled substance; (2) That the Defendant knew that the substance delivered was a controlled substance; and (3) That the acts occurred in the State of Washington. CP at 40-42. The knowledge instruction read:”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sibert · State v. Reed