State v. Topham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(2) A defendant who files a notice of intention to rely on the defense of insanity thereby submits and consents to abide by such further orders as the court may make requiring the mental examination of the defendant and designating the place of examination and the physician or physicians by whom such examination shall be made. ... A report of each mental examination of the defendant shall be filed in the court and copies thereof shall be supplied to the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Grauerholz · State v. Maas

2. ““Section (1) of the statute requires that such notice be filed before trial and within 30 days after entry of a not guilty plea. Section (2) provides that a defendant filing such notice ‘submits and consents to abide by such further orders’ as the court may make relative to mental examination. It is anticipated that the filing of the notice triggers at least one mental examination on the question of insanity. Such determination relates to sanity or legal insanity at the time of the commission of the offense and is wholly separate and apart from any mental examinations relative to competency to stand trial. In the usual case, at least one side is dissatisfied with the results of the first sanity examination and seeks another medical opinion. Hence, a foreseeable consequence of filing a notice of intent to rely on the insanity defense is delay in the commencement of trial. “We conclude that the filing of notice of intent to rely on the insanity defense, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219, operates as a waiver by said defendant of the requirements of the speedy trial statute (K.S.A. 22-3402) insofar as any such trial delay was reasonably occasioned by and attributable to the assertion of the insanity defense. In the case before us, 134 days elapsed between arraignment and the commencement of trial. Of such period, defendant was physically at the State Security Hospital at Lamed for a court-ordered sanity examination for a period of 46 days. Subtraction of just this Lamed time from the 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Maas