State v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Collins (2011), State v. Ebron (2009)
69 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 Mathews v. United States · Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · State v. Davis · State v. Wright · Stearns & Wheeler, LLC v. Kowalsky Bros., Inc.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A fundamental element of due process is the right of a defendant charged with a crime to establish a defense .... An improper instruction on a defense, like an improper instruction on an element of an offense, is of constitutional dimension .... [T]he standard of review to be applied to the defendant's constitutional claim is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled .... In determining whether the jury was misled, [i]t is well established that [a] charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect [on] the jury in guiding [it] to a correct verdict in the case .... The test to be applied to any part of a charge is whether the charge, considered as a whole, presents the case to the jury so that no injustice will result .... In reviewing the trial court's failure to charge as requested, we must adopt the version of facts most favorable to the defendant [that] the evidence would reasonably support .... A challenge to the validity of jury instructions presents a question of law over which [we have] plenary review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. This disqualification requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met. One, a completely safe retreat is, in fact, available to him and, two, he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat .... A person acts knowingly with respect to a circumstance described in a statute when is aware that such circumstance exists. A person acts knowingly with respect to a circumstance when he is aware that it exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he defendant is required to make a preliminary showing through an offer of proof before the necessity defense may be submitted to the jury .... Therefore, as a threshold question of law, the trial court must determine whether a necessity defense is warranted under the facts presented by the defendant .... If the court determines that there is sufficient evidence available to support the defense of necessity, then a defendant is entitled as a matter of law to a defense of necessity instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.