King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Where one has taken the life of another human being, and thereafter contends that he did so in self-defense, he can only be successful in his contention if: (1) he acted without fault, (2) he was in a place where he had a right to be, and (3) he was in real danger of death or great bodily harm, or in such apparent danger as caused him in good faith to fear death or great bodily harm. Bullard v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 190 , 195 N.E.2d 856 , 197 N.E.2d 295 ; Hightire v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 164 , 213 N.E.2d 707 . The burden is upon the State to show that defendant does not meet one or more of these requirements. Dorak v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 622 , 109 N.E. 771 . Whether the State has borne its burden of showing that the homicidal act was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192 , 184 N.E.2d 16 . After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal: `... has upon it a duty to consider, not to weigh, the evidence in the case for the purpose of determining whether there is any substantial evidence of probative value from which a jury reasonably could have inferred that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged'. Robinson v. State, supra, 243 Ind. at 197 , 184 N.E.2d at 18 . See also Easton v. State (1967) 248 Ind. 338 , 228 N.E.2d 6 ; Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55 , 138 N.E.2d 641 ."”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 179 Ind. App. 684 - Degenias v. State

2. ““Where one has taken the life of another human being, and thereafter contends that he did so in self-defense, he can only be successful in his contention if: (1) He acted without fault, (2) He was in a place where he had a right to be, and (3) He was in real danger of death of great bodily harm, or in such apparent danger as caused him in good faith to fear death or great bodily harm. Bullard v. State (1964), 245 Ind. [1]90, 195 N.E.2d 856 ; Hightire v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 164 , 213 N.E.2d 707 . The burden is upon the State to show that defendant does not meet one or more of these requirements. Dorak v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 622 , 109 N.E. 771 . Whether the State has borne its burden of showing that the homicidal act was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192 , 184 N.E.2d 16 After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal: . . has upon it a duty to consider, not to weigh, the evidence in the case for the purpose of determining whether there is any substantial evidence of probative value from which a jury reasonably could have inferred that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged’ Robinson v. State, supra, 243 Ind. at 197 , 184 N.E.2d at 18 . See also Easton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 338 , 228 N.E.2d 6 ; Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55 , 138 N.E.2d 641 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 396 - Nuss v. State · Naugher v. State

3. “"We, the Jury, find the defendant, Jenna Pauline Kelsie, guilty of the charge of Murder in the Second Degree." "We, the Jury, find the defendant, Jenna Pauline Kelsie, not guilty of the charge of Murder in the Second Degree but guilty of the charge of Manslaughter." "We, the Jury, find the defendant, Jenna Pauline Kelsie, not guilty." After the jury had retired, appellant's counsel objected to the verdict forms: "Let the record show the defendant, prior to the return of the jury of its verdict and while the jury is deliberating, the defendant's attorneys first having knowledge of the form of the verdicts submitted to the jury, now objects to the Court's verdicts for the jury to fix and to find whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. The defendant states and objects that the verdicts should be that the jury finds the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and fixes the penalty at life imprisonment and there should be another verdict submitted to the jury that, we, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and fix the penalty of imprisonment of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty-five years. It is the defendant's position that the jury is to fix the penalty of the second degree murder charge and the defendant now requests the Court to submit to the jury verdicts fixing the penalty of life imprisonment and also a verdict for the jury to fix the penalty of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty-five years”

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