State v. Heumiller’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably State v. Hess (2004), State v. Bowker (2008)
49 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Chimel v. California · Payton v. New York
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where a request has been made to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense, the duty of the trial judge is determined by the evidence. If evidence has been presented which would support a conviction of a lesser charge, refusal to give the requested instruction would be reversible error. (citations omitted) There must be sufficient evidence, however, when read in the light most favorable to the defendant, which would justify a jury in concluding that the greater offense was not committed and that a lesser offense was, in fact, committed." 264 N.W.2d at 706 , quoting People v. Karasek, 63 Mich.App. 706 , 234 N.W.2d 761 (1975).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Waff · State v. Wall“Under the law as established in this state, it is incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, if requested, upon a lesser offense included in the offense charged if the evidence warrants a conviction upon the included offense. There are two tests that must be satisfied in determining whether the trial court should submit a lesser included offense instruction to the jury. The first is a legal test, the second is factual.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wall · State v. Gillespie“The legal test is met if (1) all of the elements of the included offense are lesser in number than the elements of the greater offense; (2) the penalty for the included lesser offense must be less than that of the greater offense; and (3) both offenses must contain common elements so that the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. In order to meet the factual test, evidence must be presented which would support a conviction of a lesser charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black · State v. Martin
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.