State v. Shoffner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 95 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. “(2) As used in this chapter, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. “(3) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense which the defendant must establish to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. White · State v. Erick O. Magett

2. ““Q. ... I will ask you whether you have formed an opinion as to whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the alleged commission of the alleged offense on the 31st day of January, 1965. A. I have formed an opinion. “Q. What is that opinion? A. It is my opinion that Paul Edward McCarter was sane, that he understood the nature and quality of his acts, that he was not feeble-minded and that he was able to confer with his counsel in his own behalf.” “Q. State whether or not in your opinion, Doctor, at the time of the alleged commission of the alleged offense on the 31st day of January, 1965, the defendant had such an abnormal condition of the mind from any cause as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with respect to such alleged wrongful act. A. It is my opinion that he was able to distinguish between right and wrong.” “Q. . . . Have you an opinion as to whether his act of shooting on January 31, 1965, was the product of any mental disease, mental defect or mental abnormality? A. No, it was not.” “Q. ... A. Yes, I think I understand and I think that I have said that in my opinion he was sane, that he did know the difference between right and wrong, but at the time of commission of the act he was in a severe emotional crisis which impaired his capacity to act upon his knowledge of the nature and consequences, full consequences of his act.” “Q. And it is also your opinion, Doctor, is it not, that the defendant was not insane at the time o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 36 Wis. 2d 608 - State v. McCarter

3. ““. . . At bottom, the determination whether a man is or is not held responsible for his conduct is not a medical but a legal, social or moral judgment. Ideally, psychiatrists — much like experts in other fields — should provide grist for the legal mill, should furnish the raw data upon which the legal judgment is based. It is the psychiatrist who informs as to the mental state of the accused — his characteristics, his potentialities, his capabilities. But once this information is disclosed, it is society as a whole, represented by judge or jury, which decides whether a man with the characteristics described should or should not be held accountable for his acts. In so deciding, it cannot be presumed that juries will check their common sense at the courtroom door.” (our emphasis) U.S. v. Freeman, supra, p. 619-20.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hill v. State