Valentine v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “To convict a defendant of driving while under the influence, the State is not required to prove any mens rea with respect to the cireumstance of having consumed too much aleohol to legally drive. But the State must prove that the defendant was legally intoxicated (either because his blood alcohol level met or exceeded the statutory limit within four hours of driving, or because he was under the influence at the time of driving) and [must prove that the defendant] knowingly drank and drove; it is implicit in the proof of these elements that the defendant was eriminally negligent as to the cireumstance of being too impaired to legally drive. The conduct of consuming aleohol puts a person on notice that he may be [or become] impaired. [[Image here]] [Proof that the defendant was legally intoxicated and that the defendant knowingly consumed alcohol and drove is sufficient to establish that the defendant was negligent with respect to the cireumstance that he was too impaired to legally drive.”

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

2. “(a) A person commits the crime of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance if the person operates or drives a motor vehicle or operates an aircraft or a watercraft (1) while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, intoxicating liquor, inhalant, or any controlled substance, singly or in combination; or (2) and if [WHEN], as determined by a chemical test taken within four hours after the alleged operating or driving [OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED], there is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood or 80 milligrams or 08 more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, or if [WHEN] there is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of the person's breath [; OR (3) WHILE THE PERSON IS UNDER THE COMBINED INFLUENCE OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, AN INTOXICATING LIQUOR, AN INHALANT, AND A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE].”

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

3. “Valentine argues ... that a person cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence unless the person was at least negligent with respect to the cireumstance of being legally drinking and driving is otherwise not sane-tionable. This claim fails [because] proof that the defendant was legally intoxicated and that the defendant knowingly consumed alcohol and drove is sufficient to establish that the defendant was negligent with respect to the circumstance that he was too impaired to legally drive. We therefore reject Valentine's claim that the [DUI] law is unconstitutional because it imposes criminal liability without proof of mens rea.”

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