State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence of diminished capacity is admissible only for the limited purpose of negating specific intent and is not a substitute for a plea of insanity. Where insanity is relied upon, the jury must first determine that issue. If it finds the defendant sane, it may then consider, where appropriate, evidence of diminished capacity as a defense to a crime requiring proof of a specific intent. Whether the jury should be instructed on diminished capacity is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wilburn · State v. Pioletti

2. ““ ‘[I]f a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement: “ ‘(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; “ ‘(b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and “ ‘(c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.’” (Quoting State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 216 , 547 P.2d 720 [1976]).”

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

3. ““[T]he criminal law concept of diminished capacity requires the presence of a mental disease or defect not amounting to legal insanity which a jury may consider in determining whether the defendant has the specific intent required for the crime charged. Mere personality characteristics such as poor impulse control, a short temper, frustration, feelings of dependency, ‘snapping,’ lack of concern for the rights of other people, etc., do not constitute a mental disease or defect bringing the doctrine of diminished capacity into play. “Under the facts before us, evidence of diminished capacity was lacking. Evidence that defendant became frustrated over his marital problems, lost control, snapped, etc., go to personality characteristics and reactions to events rather than any underlying mental disease or defect. Even had evidence of diminished capacity been presented, the giving of an instruction thereon is not required and is a matter of trial court discretion. ” (Emphasis added.)”

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