Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2011
20 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 Barker v. Wingo · Pate v. Robinson · Jackson v. Indiana · Blackburn v. State · White v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I do not agree with the test applied by the majority opinion with respect to whether to hold a competency hearing. The issue before us on appeal is not whether there was ‘sufficient evidence [for the trial judge] to find that the defendant had sufficient comprehension to stand trial,’ but rather whether the trial court had before it ‘indicators sufficient to establish reasonable grounds to believe the defendant to be legally incompetent.’ Evans v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [148], 300 N.E.2d 882 ; Tinsley v. State (1973), [260] Ind. [577], 298 N.E.2d 429 . (footnote omitted) “So long as the evidence before the court raises a ‘bona fide doubt’ as to a defendant’s competence to stand trial, the judge on his own motion must conduct a competency hearing pursuant to Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 9-1706a, IC 35-5-3-2. Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 . “The trial judge, therefore, has much less discretion with respect to refusing to grant a competency hearing than he does in determining competency at a hearing. If this Court determines that there were sufficient indicators to establish a bona fide doubt as to defendant’s competency, the failure to grant a competency hearing is error.”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is a reasonable inference that within a reasonable period of time it was determined that there was a substantial probability that Appellant would attain competency in the foreseeable future since in fact, Appellant became competent in four (4) years.”
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.