27 Wash. App. 326 - State v. Crenshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 98 Wash. 2d 789 - State v. Crenshaw (1983), 100 Wash. 2d 417 - State v. Griffin (1983)
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 Pope v. Nebraska · Patterson v. Medberry · Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner · Ker v. California · People v. . Schmidt
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.
“'Incompetency' means a person lacks the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense as a result of mental disease or defect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In addition to the plea of not guilty, the defendant has entered a plea of insanity existing at the time of the act charged. Insanity existing at the time of the commission of the act charged is a defense. For a defendant to be found not guilty by reason of insanity you must find that, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant's mind was affected to such an extent that the defendant was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the acts with which the defendant is charged or was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular acts with which defendant is charged. What is meant by the terms "right and wrong" refers to knowledge of a person at the time of committing an act that he was acting contrary to the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In most insanity cases, jury instructions need not distinguish between legal or moral wrong because the issue rarely arises. M'Naghten and our statutes clearly allow an open-ended instruction. Accordingly, the typical practice of submitting WPIC 20.01 to the jury without attempting to define "right" and "wrong" is appropriate.”
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.