State v. Malley’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2009
8 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 Cree v. Goldstein · State v. Leinweber · State v. Thompson · Bennett v. United States · State v. Hoskins
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the statutes of Minnesota, a person is not criminally liable for an act when, because of a defect of reason caused by mental illness, he did not know the nature of his act, or he did not know that it was wrong. The elements of the defense of mental illness in this case are, first, the defendant, to be criminally liable, must have known the nature of his act. This means, simply, he must have understood what he was doing. If, because of a defect of reason, caused by a mental illness, defendant did not know what action he was taking or what the consequences of his action would be, then he did not know the nature of his act. Secondly, even if defendant knew the nature of his act, he must have understood that his act was wrong. The word, "wrong" in the instruction, is used in the moral sense and does not simply refer to a violation of statute. Stated another way, even if defendant realized that his act violated the law, he is not criminally liable if, because of a defect of reason caused by a mental illness, he did not understand that his act was morally wrong. Third, such failure of the defendant to know the nature of his act or that it was morally wrong, or that it was wrong, must have been the result of a defect of reason caused by mental illness. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove this defense by the greater weight of the evidence. This means he must prove to you that it is more likely true than not true that because of a defect of reason caused by a mental”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dodis“If a motion for [change of venue] is made or if reconsideration of a prior denial is sought, it may be granted notwithstanding the fact that a jury has been sworn to try the case.” Minn.R.Crim.P. 25.02, subd. 4. . "For the purposes of [murder in the first degree], ‘premeditation’ means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brom“shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act the person was laboring under such a defect of reason, from [mental illness or mental deficiency] * * * as not to know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schneider
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.