State v. Howley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. To warrant a separate instruction, a defendant’s theory of defense must be a legal defense recognized in the law, i.e. statutes or caselaw. (Kinsey at 633 ) 2. Legal defenses are matters which go to the legal exoneration of guilt or evidence which may reduce the charge to a lesser included offense. (Kinsey at 633 ) 3. Once presented, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine if the evidence is sufficient to support the instruction. (Kinsey at 633 ) 4. The measure of legal sufficiency is the “any competent evidence” standard as applied to establishing a prima facie proof of the defense. Therefore, if there is any competent evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, from which the jury could determine the existence of the legal defense, then the defendant is entitled to an instruction on the defense. 5. In applying the “any competent evidence” standard, the Court should (a) Identify and define the specific elements necessary for the requested instruction, i.e. either statutory or ease law elements for the defense; (b) Consider the evidence presented which meets the standard to determine whether such evidence supports each element of the defense; and (e) If the requested instruction is not supported by competent evidence the Court must reject the requested instruction. 6. In deciding whether a defendant has established a prima facie proof of the defense using the “any competent evidence” standard, the Court shall determine if t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State

2. “1. A specific threat of immediate harm; 2. The circumstances which necessitate the illegal act must not have been brought about by the defendant; 3. The same objective could not have been accomplished by a less offensive alternative available to the actor; and 4. The harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Douglas Earl Meyer