Eastin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In order to convict the defendant under the statute for Kidnapping or Assault and Battery with Intent to Gratify Sexual Desires, it is necessary to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entertained the specific intent charged and performed the acts to accomplish the specific purpose. Mere drunkenness does not excuse the offense but it may produce a state of mind which incapacitates the party from forming or entertaining a specific intent as the mental condition is such that a specific intent cannot be formed. Whether this condition is caused by drunkeness or otherwise, a party cannot be said to have committed an offense when a necessary element of which is that it be done with a specific intent. If the jury finds that this specific intent is missing from this defendants mind then the defendant should not be found guilty of Kidnapping or Assault and Battery with Intent to Grat-tify Sexual Desires.””

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

2. ““. . . In construing the correctness of instructions it has been the practice of this court to disregard clerical mistakes or verbal inaccuracies which do not confuse the jury. McCutcheon v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 247, 256 , 155 N.E. 544 ; White v. State (1906), 37 Ind. App. 95, 100, 101 , 76 N. E. 554 ; Flannigan v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 19 , 134 N. E. 885 ; Faulkenberg v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 491, 495 , 151 N. E. 382 ; Mitchell v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 1 , 138 N. E. 507 supra. . . .””

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

3. ““[T]he rule seems to be universally asserted by the authorities, that in all prosecutions for an assault with intent to kill, the intoxication of the defendant is admissible in, evidence, and should be considered by the jury or court trying the case in determining whether he actually entertained the specific intent essential to the crime charged.” Booher v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 435, 446, 447 , 60 N. E. 156 , 54 L. R. A. 391; Eastin v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 101, 104 , 117 N. E. 2d 124 .”

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