State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Lundgren v. Mitchell (2006), State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 (2000)
5 federal appellate · 39 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17
Relies on United Families of America v. Kendrick · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co. · Noram Energy Corp. v. United States · State v. Sivri
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In seeking to discern that intent, we look to circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e have adopted the word `wrongfulness' in Section 4.01 as the American law Institute's suggested alternative to `criminality' because we wish to include the case where the perpetrator appreciates that his conduct is criminal, but, because of a delusion, believes it to be morally justified. " Id. at 648 (Berdon, J., concurring). It is this test that Uyesugi urges this court to adopt. Although our legislative history does not provide us with the specific reasoning found and relied upon by the Connecticut Supreme Court, it did expressly provide that the commentary from the MPC could be referenced in interpreting the Hawai`i Code. Although Wilson is not controlling in this jurisdiction, it is nonetheless persuasive because its reasoning is thorough and directly applicable to HRS § 704-400. The Hawai`i legislature had the opportunity to choose between the terms "criminality”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Uyesugi“and that the trial court's failure to so instruct was reversible error. Id. at 637 . The Wilson majority interpreted both Freeman and the MPC in adopting an objective test to determine whether the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions. Id. at 637 . The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that a defendant may establish that he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Uyesugi
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.