State v. Hendrix’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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant has raised in this case what is called the defense of self-defense. Self-defense is a complete defense. And if it is established, you must find the defendant not guilty. The State had the burden of disproving self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt as I have already defined that term for you. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt after considering all of the evidence, including the evidence of self-defense, then you must find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if you have no reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt after considering all the evidence, including the evidence of self-defense, then you must find the defendant guilty. The following elements are required to establish self-defense.... First, the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty. If the defendant's conduct was the type which was reasonably calculated to and did provoke a deadly assault, the defendant would be at fault in bringing on the difficulty and would not be entitled to an acquittal based on self-defense. The second element of self-defense is that the defendant was actually in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury or that the defendant actually believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. If the defendant was actually in imminent danger, it must be shown that the circumstances would have warranted a person of ordinary firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow to prevent death or serious ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Marin · State v. Rye

2. “(1) That he was without fault in bringing on the difficulty, (2) That he actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or of sustaining serious bodily injury [ ], or he actually was in imminent danger of losing his life or of sustaining serious bodily injury, (3) If his defense is based on his actual belief of imminent danger, that a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief [ ], or if his defense is based on his being in actual and imminent danger, that the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness, and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm, or losing his own life, (4) That he had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in the particular instance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dickey · State v. Dickey

3. “(1) That the accused was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) That the accused actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or of sustaining serious bodily injury; (3) That a reasonable, prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief of imminent danger; (4) That the accused had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of loss of life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in the particular instances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Leeke