28 Wash. App. 98 - State v. Edmon’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 122 Wash. 2d 440 - State v. Furman (1993), Greene v. Lambert (2002)
4 federal appellate · 53 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 · Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner · Bourns, Inc. v. Allen-Bradley Co. · 91 Wash. 2d 466 - State v. Foster · 60 Wash. 2d 551 - State v. White
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The defendant lacked the ability to form a specific intent due to a mental disorder not amounting to insanity. 2. The expert is qualified to testify on the subject. 3. The expert personally examines and diagnoses the defendant and is able to testify to an opinion with reasonable medical certainty. 4. The expert's testimony is based on substantial supporting evidence in the record relating to the defendant and the case, or there must be an offer to prove such evidence. The supporting evidence must accurately reflect the record and cannot consist solely of uncertain estimates or speculation. 5. The cause of the inability to form a specific intent must be a mental disorder, not emotions like jealousy, fear, anger, and hatred. 6. The mental disorder must be causally connected to a lack of specific intent, not just reduced perception, overreaction or other irrelevant mental states. 7. The inability to form a specific intent must occur at a time relevant to the offense. 8. The mental disorder must substantially reduce the probability that the defendant formed the alleged intent. 9. The lack of specific intent may not be inferred from evidence of the mental disorder, and it is insufficient to only give conclusory testimony that a mental disorder caused an inability to form specific intent. The opinion must contain an explanation of how the mental disorder had this effect.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n expert may give an opinion regarding a defendant's ability to form a specific intent”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The concept of specific intent involves an intent in addition to the intent to do the physical act. State v. Nelson, 17 Wn. App. 66 , 561 P.2d 1093 (1977). Thus, an intent to produce a certain result from the act would be specific intent. The fine distinction between the intent to produce a result (specific intent) and the awareness of a result of one’s conduct (knowledge) should not determine the admissibility of expert medical evidence of a mental disability caused by a mental disorder.”
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.