State v. Hammonds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 107 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Jurors, in common with people in general, are aware of the meanings of verdicts of guilty and not guilty. It is common knowledge that a verdict of not guilty means that the prisoner goes free and that a verdict of guilty means that he is subject to such punishment as the court may impose. But a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity has no such commonly understood meaning.... It means neither freedom nor punishment. It means the accused will be confined in a hospital for the mentally ill until the superintendant of such hospital certifies, and the court is satisfied, that such person has recovered his sanity and will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others.... [T]he jury has a right to know the meaning of this possible verdict as accurately as it knows by common knowledge the meaning of the other two possible verdicts.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Locklear · State v. Shickles

2. “). Thus, like a defendant who interposes an insanity defense, a defendant asserting mental retardation is entitled to an instruction by the trial court regarding punishment”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Locklear · Carolina v. Taylor

3. ““Now I instruct you that sanity or soundness of mind is the normal condition of men. Therefore the law presumes that everyone is sane until the contrary is made to appear. The defendant in this case would be insane if, at the time of the alleged crime and as a result of mental disease or defect, he either did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know that it was wrong. Thus, the mere existence of a mental disease or defect is not sufficient. The disease or defect, if any, must have so impaired the defendant’s mental capacity that he either did not know the nature and quality of his act or he did not know that it was wrong. On the other hand, it need not be shown that the defendant lacked mental capacity with regard to all matters. A person may be sane on every subject but one but yet if his mental disease or defect with reference to that one subject rendered him unable to know the nature and quality of his act with which he is charged, or know that the act was wrong, then his defense would be complete [for he was not responsible for his acts and he is not guilty of any offense against the law as guilt arises from the mind and wicked will. Criminal intent, of course, is an essential element of murder, and if by reason of insanity or mental disease a person is incapable of forming any intent, he cannot be regarded by the law as guilty.] So I charge you that if you’re satisfied that the defendant was insane at the time of the choking or strangulation of Mary Ham”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Franks