State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Now, getting into the actual elements of manslaughter in the second degree, the State is required to establish that Mildred King caused the death of Richard King by her culpable negligence. Again the Court will explain what that phrase means to you, whereby she creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. Now what would happen just for argument sake if I asked you to simply disregard all the evidence that the State has produced, disregard the doctor’s testimony, disregard the autopsy results, approach this case as though the Defendant’s version, the version that she gave the police is the gospel truth. Even if you ignore all the State’s evidence and you accept as the gospel truth the Defendant’s version of what happened, what you still have is a bare minimum in this case is manslaughter in the second degree. The version that Mildred King gave to police two hours after Richard King was pronounced dead establishes, according to her, that the stabbing was an accident. That’s what manslaughter in the second degree is, you are assuming that the killing was accidental. MR. RICHARDS: Your Honor, I would object to that and ask for a curative instruction on the laws to that point. THE COURT: I will consider that at the conclusion of the argument, Mr. Richards. Go ahead, Mr. Pendleton. MR. PENDLETON: And Mildred King’s version, the version she gave police clearly establishes that even though the stabbing may have been accidental s”

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

2. ““The respondent’s unlawful acts need not be the sole cause of death; it is sufficient if they were a contributory cause. State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573 , 89 A. 167 , 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 913. The respondent is responsible for the consequences, even where his acts were not the immediate cause of death, if an intervening cause was the natural result of his wrongful acts. Letner v. State, 156 Tenn. 68 , 299 S.W. 1049 , 55 A.L.R. 915 . The rule is stated in 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, § 637, that, ‘whenever a blow is inflicted under circumstances to render the person inflicting it criminally responsible if death follows, he will be deemed guilty of the homicide though the person beaten would have died from other causes, or would not have died from this one had not others operated with it; provided the blow contributed either mediately-or immediately to the death,, in a degree sufficient for the law’s notice. In other words, the blow or wound.for which the defendant is responsible need not be the sole cause.’ Again, in section 639, Mr. Bishop says: ‘It (the wound) need not even be a concurrent cause; much less need it be the next proximate one; for if it is the cause of the cause, no more is required.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. González Ruiz

3. ““One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by the law to be guilty of homicide if the injury contributes me-diately or immediately to the death of such other. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor of responsibility. So the physical condition of the slain man at the time when the act was done, will not excuse or minimize its consequences, if the causal connection between it and the fact of death is made to appear.” * * * * * « It is immaterial that defendant did not know that the deceased was suffering from a condition which facilitated the killing and that he did not reasonably anticipate that his act would cause death.”

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