25 Wash. App. 433 - State v. Berge’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably 94 Ill. 2d 378 - People v. Free (1983), 110 Wash. 2d 32 - State v. Ng (1988)
25 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 Darry v. . the People · 61 Wash. 2d 165 - State v. Moore · 4 Wash. App. 781 - State v. Hurley · 29 Wash. 2d 468 - State v. Mitchell · 20 Wash. App. 378 - State v. Norby
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The predecessor to RCW 9A.32.030 (1)(b) was RCW 9.48.030 (2), which made the killing of a human being `(b)y an act imminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, without a premeditated design to effect the death of any individual' murder in the first degree. Where an act causing a person's death was specifically aimed at and inflicted upon a particular person and none other, the perpetrator could not properly be convicted of first degree murder under this section of RCW 9.48.030. State v. Mitchell , 29 Wn.2d 468 , 188 P.2d 88 (1947). "The court in Mitchell relied heavily upon the case of Darry v. People , 10 N.Y. 120 (1854), which contained three opinions arriving at the same result and a dissent. While Darry emphasizes the language `dangerous to others', the second opinion of the New York court is also extensively and favorably quoted in Mitchell and focuses upon the language `evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life' which is similar to `manifesting an extreme indifference to human life' contained in RCW 9A.32.030 (1)(b). That opinion states in relevant part: "`The act must evince a depraved mind, regardless of human life. These words are exactly descriptive of general malice, and cannot be fairly applied to any affection of the mind having for its object a particular individual. They define general recklessness, and are not pertinent to describe cruelty to an individual. The act by which the death is effected must evince a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As we read the homicide statutes, the legislature intended that one who kills with the intent to cause the death of a particular individual be charged with murder in the first degree, pursuant to RCW 9A.32.030(l)(a), or murder in the second degree, as defined in the instruction given by the trial court. As other statutory provisions cover acts directed at a particular individual or individuals, we shall assume that the legislature intended RCW 9A.32.030(l)(b) to provide for those situations indicating a recklessness and extreme indifference to human life generally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of that condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular mental state is a necessary element to constitute a particular kind or degree of crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such mental state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.