State v. Burnette’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Stanley (1975), State v. Hageman (1982)
85 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 Sorrells v. United States · Grimm v. United States · State v. . Love · State v. Marquardt · 98 Cal. App. 2d 545 - People v. Finkelstin
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether the defendant was entitled to have the defense of entrapment submitted to the jury is to be determined by the evidence. Before a Trial Court can submit such a defense to the jury there must be some credible evidence tending to support the defendant’s contention that he was a victim of entrapment, as that term is known to the law. (Citations omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Neville“It is the genera] rule that where the criminal intent and design originates in the mind of one other than the defendant, and the defendant is, by persuasion, trickery or fraud, incited and induced to commit the crime charged in order to prosecute him for it, when he would not have committed the crime, except for such incitements and inducements, these circumstances constitute entrapment and a valid defense. [Citations omitted.] In the leading case of Butts v. U.S., supra [ 273 F. 35 (1921) ], Sanborn, C.J., said for the Court: ‘The first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish, crime. It is not their duty to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it.’ A clear distinction is to be drawn between inducing a person to commit a crime he did not contemplate doing, and the setting of a trap to catch him in the execution of a crime of his own conception. S. v. Jarvis, supra [ 105 W.Va. 499 , 143 S.E. 235 (1928)]; S. v. Mantis, 32 Idaho 724 , 187 P. 268 ; 15 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, p. 24; 22 C.J.S., Crim. Law, pp. 100-101.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hageman · State v. Luster““A clear distinction is to be drawn between inducing a person to commit a crime he did not contemplate doing,' and the setting of a trap to catch him in the execution of a crime of his own conception. [Citing authority.] “It seems to be the general rule in those cases where the doing of a particular act is a crime regardless of the consent of anyone, that entrapment is not available as a defense to a person, who has the intent and design to commit a crime originating in his own mind, and who does,in fact commit all the essential elements constituting it, merely because an officer of the law, or another, in his effort to secure evidence against him for a prosecution, affords him an opportunity to commit the criminal act, or purposely places facilities in his way or aids and encourages him in the perpetration of the, crime which had its genesis in his own mind.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Hageman
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.