Siler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2022
9 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 Strickland v. Washington · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Boykin v. Alabama · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Cronic
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Intoxication from alcohol does not per se establish involuntariness. State v. Baker, 4 Kan.App.2d 340 , 606 P.2d 120, 123 (1980); and State v. Tucker, 32 Wash.App. 83 , 645 P.2d 711, 713 (1982). Instead, for intoxication to render a confession involuntary, the impairment must be so great as to deprive an individual of a capacity to understand the meaning of his statements. See Lee v. State, Okla.Crim., 700 P.2d 1017, 1020 (1985). Even though a defendant appears intoxicated, the fact that he understood what he was doing, carried on a conversation and responded to questions will render the statements admissible. State v. Curry, 127 Ariz. 1 , 617 P.2d 785, 787 (App.1980). The proper inquiry regarding intoxication is whether a confession cannot be said to be the product of rational intellect and free will because of extreme intoxication. State v. Corona, 60 Or.App. 500 , 655 P.2d 216, 219-220 (1982). Stone v. State, 745 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Wyo.1987). We have also stated: "The general rule applicable to confessions obtained from persons under intox ication has been well stated to the effect that 'proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt of crime will not, without more, bar the reception of the confession in evidence. But if it is shown that the accused was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements, then the confession is inadmissible. ." [[Image here]] Lonquest v. State, 495 P2d 575, 582 (Wyo.[1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Carter v. State“the impairment [is] so great as to deprive an individual of a capacity to understand the meaning of his statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Carter v. State
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.