Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “competent or admissible evidence, direct or circumstantial”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sumpter v. State · Thompson v. State

2. ““STATE’S INSTRUCTION NO. 5 With regard to the defendant David Lee Williams, the Court instructs you that the State of Indiana need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant participated in the commission of a robbery at the Hager-LeBeau Service Station of Fort Wayne, Inc. in Allen County, Indiana, on August 20, 1974, and that as a result one Weston Hager was killed. With regard to the defendant Henry Huntsman, the Court instructs you that the State of Indiana need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant participated in the commission of a robbery at the Hager-LeBeau Service Station of Fort Wayne, Inc., in Allen County, Indiana, on August 20, 1974; that as a result Weston Hager was killed; and that the defendant Henry Huntsman was legally sane at the time of the commission of the crime.” “STATE’S INSTRUCTION NO. 12 The Court instructs you that it is your sole province to determine whether or not at the time of the commission of the act charged the defendant had a mental disease or defect of such a substantial nature that he should be relieved of criminal responsibility. You are not bound to accept the testimony of any expert witness, such as a psychiatrist or physician, that the defendant had such a mental disease or defect. Rather it is for you and you alone to determine from all of the evidence whether or not the defendant did have a mental disease or defect, and, if so, whether or not it was of such substantial nature that he should be reliev”

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

3. ““It is clear from the language in the Walters decision that the presumption of sanity is sufficient to constitute a prima fade case in favor of the State where there is no evidence introduced to dispute the presumption. Stated in other terms, if the defendant fails to meet the burden of producing evidence, the legal presumption of sanity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case in favor of the State. Thus the only significance of the presumption is that it operates where no evidence of insanity has been introduced. This view is wholly consistent with the purpose the presumption is intended to serve. It follows, therefore, that when the defendant has met the burden of producing evidence, the legal presumption of sanity has no further evidentiary value, and the jury should not be instructed as to its existence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Ind. App. 329 - Hollander v. State