State v. Jacoby’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 117 Wis. 2d 701 - State v. Woods (1984), State v. Miranda (1978)
48 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Michelson v. United States · Strong v. United States · Goldberg v. United States · Seaboard Shipping Corp. v. Moran Inland Waterways Corp. · Mandel v. Nouse
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All persons, independently of their character or reputation, are under the equal protection of the law. A homicide victim’s prior violent or turbulent character or reputation is ordinarily immaterial and furnishes another no excuse to become his or her private executioner. Thus where the accused denies the killing or asserts it was unintentional, evidence of the deceased’s character is inadmissible. But an exception to this general rule applies where the accused asserts he or she acted in self-defense and the slightest supporting evidence is introduced. Then the violent, quarrelsome, dangerous or turbulent character of the deceased may be shown, both by evidence of his or her reputation in that respect and by witnesses who can testify from an actual knowledge of the victim’s character.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Miller · State v. Begey““It is the rule in Iowa and the majority of jurisdictions that the quarrelsome, violent, aggressive or turbulent character of a homicide victim cannot be established by proof of specific acts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The reasons for the rule prohibiting proof of specific acts of violence appear to be at least threefold: (1) A single act may have been exceptional, unusual, and not characteristic and thus a specific act does not necessarily establish one's general character; (2) although the state is bound to foresee that the general character of the deceased may be put in issue, it cannot anticipate and prepare to rebut each and every specific act of violence; and (3) permitting proof of specific acts would multiply the issues, prolong the trial and confuse the jury.”
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.