State v. Walton’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2018
16 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 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · United States v. Campbell · State v. Johnson · State v. Reese · State v. Rupp
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although the State must carry the burden to disprove the necessity defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has the burden of generating a fact question on the defense. If all the requirements of the defense are not addressed in the defendant’s evidence, [the] trial court is not obligated to submit the issue to the jury.... The necessity defense does not apply except in emergency situations where the threatened harm is immediate and the threatened disaster imminent. The de fendant must be stripped of options by which he or she might avoid both evils.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the harm avoided, (2) the harm done, (3) the defendant's intention to avoid the greater harm, (4) the relative value of the harm avoided and the harm done, and (5) optional courses of action and the imminence of disaster.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This requirement that the threat must be immediate and not future has been invoked in related defenses. In a case of compulsion, or duress, State v. Clay, 220 Iowa 1191, 1202-03 , 264 N.W. 77, 83 (1935), we approved the following language, which we gleaned from several sources: Fears of future injuries do not excuse an offense.... The necessity which will excuse a man for breach of law must be instant and imminent.... ... The compulsion which will excuse a criminal act, however, must be present, imminent, and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. Such compulsion must have arisen without the negligence or fault of the person who insists upon it as a defense. See also [United States v] Campbell, 609 F.2d 922, 924 [ (8th Cir.1979) ] (“a defense of duress or coercion requires that there be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm ... and it must be in a situation in which there was no opportunity to avoid the danger”); [R.JPerkins, [Criminal Law] supra, at 954 [ (2d ed.1969) ] (“It is not sufficient (for the defense of compulsion) ... that a threat is now made relating only to the future.... ”). Cf. 704.10, The Code (compulsion specifically requires a reasonable belief that the menace of serious injury be imminent).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walker
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.