People v. Troche’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2012 · most notably Fisher v. United States (1946), 40 Cal. 2d 876 - People v. Daugherty (1953)
3 federal appellate · 90 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · Capital Traction Co. v. Hof · Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial court committed no error in strictly following the letter of the statute (Pen. Code, secs. 1020 and 1026) and excluding, on the trial of the general issue of not guilty, all evidence tending to show the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense. The doctrine of ‘partial insanity,’ announced by some authorities, particularly Wharton in his work on Criminal Law, has never been recognized as the law in this jurisdiction. In this state, in order that ‘insanity may be available as a defense to a crime charged, it must appear that the defendant, when the act was committed, was so deranged and diseased mentally that he was not conscious of the wrongful nature of the act committed. If he has reasoning capacity sufficient to distinguish between right and wrong, as to the particular act he is doing, knowledge and consciousness that what he is doing is wrong and criminal and will subject him to punishment, he must be held responsible for his conduct. Although he may be laboring under partial insanity, as, for instance, suffering from some insane delusion or hallucination—still, if he understands the nature and character of his action and the consequences —if he has knowledge that it is wrong and criminal, and that if he does the act he will do wrong, such partial insanity or the existence of such delusion or hallucination is not sufficient to relieve him from responsibility for his criminal acts.’ (People v. Willard, 150 Cal. 543, 554 [ 89”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“question of the degree of insanity that shall constitute a defense of crime is not here involved and no reason exists to question the established rule of this subject.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Muench v. Israel“to conclusively presume any ingredient of crime is to clash squarely with the presumption of innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Muench v. Israel
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.