Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Evidence of a criminal defendant’s mental disability may be presented in support of a defense of insanity or delusional compulsion (see OCGA §§ 16-3-2 and 16-3-3); a claim of incompetency to stand trial (see OCGA § 17-7-130); or, since such pleas were authorized, a plea of guilty but mentally ill or guilty but mentally retarded (see OCGA § 17-7-131) — none of which Appellant raised in this case. For more than 150 years, however, [our Courts have] consistently upheld the exclusion of evidence of a defendant’s diminished mental condition when offered to support other defenses or to negate the intent element of a crime. See, e.g., State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603, 607-608 ( 715 SE2d 48 ) (2011) (“ ‘[M]ental abnormality, unless it amounts to insanity, is not a defense to a crime.’ ”) (quoting Wallace v. State, 248 Ga. 255, 262 ( 282 SE2d 325 ) (1981)); Paul v. State, 274 Ga. 601, 603 ( 555 SE2d 716 ) (2001) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that “he was entitled to introduce expert evidence of his mental impairment tending to show his lack of intent to kill,” because “the expert evidence was irrelevant to the state of mind necessary to determine guilt in light of the defendant’s refusal to assert an insanity defense or that he was mentally ill at the time of the conduct in question”) [.]”

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

2. ““ ‘[i]t was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.’ ” Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 ( 673 SE2d 223 ) (2009) (citation omitted). When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to reject Appellant’s accident defense and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of [the crimes charged]. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 620, 621 ( 740 SE2d 158 ) (2013); Brown v. State, 292 Ga. 454, 456 ( 738 SE2d 591 ) (2013).”

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

3. “Georgia takes a more restrictive position on this issue than many other jurisdictions, where the admission of evidence relating to a defendant's deficient mental condition to support defenses other than those based on diminished mental capacity or to negate a required element of a crime has been authorized by statute or judicial decision in at least some circumstances.”

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