18 Md. App. 632 - Colbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Ware v. State (2000), Raithel v. State (1977)
36 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 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · State v. Hutchinson · 4 Md. App. 689 - Strawderman v. State · 6 Md. App. 540 - Saul v. State · 14 Md. App. 538 - Young 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The clear difference in procedure is this: although a defendant is presumed competent until the issue is raised, that presumption is overcome when it ‘shall appear to the court or be alleged’ that he is incompetent to stand trial. The allegation may be made by the defendant himself, or by his counsel. When the original presumption is thus overcome there remains no presumption one way or the other. The issue raised must be determined by the court, which must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is competent to stand trial.” (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever prior to or during the trial, any person charged with the commission of any crime shall appear to the court, or be alleged to be incompetent to stand trial, by the defendant himself, the court shall determine upon testimony and evidence preseyited oyi the record whether such person is unable to understand the nature or the object of the proceeding agaiyist him or to assist in his defeyise.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As in the case of insanity affecting criminal responsibility, the question of competence to stand trial is first and foremost a medical problem. An opinion as to the medical fact of competence to stand trial should be reached by a medical diagnosis. Thus the opinion must be that of a medically trained psychiatrist in order to be admissible in evidence. Saul v. State, supra." [ 3 ] 18 Md. App. at 642 , 308 A. 2d at 732 .”
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.