Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably Duncan v. State (1980), Forrester v. State (1982)
42 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Pate v. Robinson · Oregon v. Mathiason · Boykin v. Alabama · Elmore 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right to a competency hearing is not absolute and the mere appointment of two physicians to examine a defendant does not automatically invoke the statutory procedure set out in Ind.Code § 35-5-3.1-1. Montague v. State (1977) Ind. [56 Ind.Dec. 444], 360 N.E.2d 181 ; Brown v. State (1976) 264 Ind. 484 [52 Ind.Dec. 455], 346 N.E.2d 559 . The statute and due process considerations only require that a hearing take place where the evidence before the court raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity. Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 ; Cook v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 667 [31 Ind.Dec. 558], 284 N.E.2d 81 . In the present case, the only evidence actually before the court was the report submitted by the only psychiatrist who was able to examine appellant. This doctor opined that appellant was legally competent. The mere fact that appellant filed his suggestion of insanity does not constitute evidence of his mental condition. Cook, supra at 258 Ind. 670 [31 Ind.Dec. 558], 284 N.E.2d 83 . As the only real evidence before the court indicated sanity rather than insanity, the court was justified in not holding a hearing. See Parsley v. State, (1976) Ind. [54 Ind.Dec. 545], 354 N.E.2d 185 ; Brown v. State, (1976) Ind. [52 Ind.Dec. 455], 346 N.E.2d 559 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fuller v. State · Like v. State““The right to a competency hearing is not absolute and the mere appointment of two physicians to examine a defendant does not automatically invoke the statutory procedure set out in Ind.Code § 35-5-3.1-1. Montague v. State, (1977) Ind. [ 266 Ind. 51 ], 360 N.E.2d 181 ; Brown v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 484 , 346 N.E.2d 559 . The statute and due process considerations only require that a hearing take place where the evidence before the court raises a bona fide or reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity. Pate v. Robinson, (1966) 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 ; Cook v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 667 , 284 N.E.2d 81 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bryan v. State““(a) no timely and adequate motion to correct error was filed for the defendant; (b) the failure to file a timely motion to correct error was not due to the fault of the defendant; and (c) the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated motion to correct error under this rule.””
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.