14 Md. App. 538 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 18 Md. App. 291 - Bremer v. State (1973), Collins v. State (1990)
43 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Mapp v. Ohio · Stovall v. Denno · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When the law began to notice insanity as a defense, Bracton, Chief Justiciary in the middle of the thirteenth century, define[d] a madman as `one who does not know what he is doing, who lacks in mind and reason and is not far removed from the brutes.' Twenty-five years after Coke quoted Bracton's definition in Beverly's Case , he classified non compos mentis into the [1] born idiot, [2] the madman — one who `wholly loseth his memorie and understanding,' and [3] the lunatic — one who has lucid intervals but is non compos mentis during periods when `he hath not understanding.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“He now construes the supplementary charge as telling the jury that they were not the judge of the law as it pertains to responsibility for criminal conduct but were bound by the statutory definition and that such definition could not be disregarded in arriving at a verdict. Here again, there being no objection to the supplementary instruction as provided by § f of Rule 756, Young may not assign error as of right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We discussed the so-called circumstantial evidence rule at length in Nichols v. State, 5 Md.App. 340 [ 247 A.2d 722 ], indicating that perhaps it did not mean precisely what it appeared to say. In Metz v. State, 9 Md.App. 15, 23 [ 262 A.2d 331 ] we said flatly that “ * * * the test for sufficiency is the same whether the evidence be direct, circumstantial, or provided by rational inferences therefrom.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.