154 Ind. App. 147 - Shank v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably 11 Cal. 3d 542 - In Re Kapperman (1974), 159 Ind. App. 387 - Atkins v. State (1974)
49 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 · Williams v. Illinois · Tate v. Short · Wilkins v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. · White v. State
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(8) ‘Knowingly’ means that a person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge, of: (a) the nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, described by the section defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists. (b) The result of his conduct, described by the section defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.” IC 1971, 35-17-5-13, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3040 (Burns Supp.1973).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendant was in custody, but was not being interrogated by the police. Therefore, under the authority of New v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 307 , 259 N.E.2d 696 , the statement was admissible. In New, at 313-314 of 254 Ind., at 700 of 259 N.E. 2d, it was stated: ‘The trial court correctly admitted this testimony. The requirements of warning and waiver imposed by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 , apply only to custodial interrogation. The statements made to Sgt. Petro while appellant was admittedly in custody, were not made in response to any interrogation. These statements were freely, voluntarily and spontaneously given by the appellant. Such statements are admissible in evidence.’””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.