32 Cal. 3d 504 - People v. Arcega’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 149 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 34 Cal. 3d 858 - People v. Easley (1983), 44 Cal. 3d 883 - People v. Williams (1988)
4 federal appellate · 149 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 Chapman v. State of California · Harrington v. California · Estelle v. Smith · Brown v. United States · 26 Cal. 3d 557 - People v. Johnson
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonably to be implied from the [statutory] provisions [for determining competency]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“is necessary to ensure that an accused is not convicted by use of his own statements made at a court-compelled examination. . . . Hence, the rule protects both an accused's privilege against self-incrimination and the public policy of not trying persons who are mentally incompetent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of such inquiry [into competency] is not to determine guilt or innocence. It has no relation to the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Rather, the sole purpose of these statutes is the humanitarian desire to assure that one who is mentally unable to defend himself not be tried upon a criminal charge. [2] This purpose is entirely unrelated to any element of guilt, and there is no indication of any legislative intent that any result of this inquiry into a wholly collateral matter be used in determining the issue of guilt. Moreover, the issue of present competency, once the trial court's doubt has been expressed, must be decided before any trial of the charged offense. Both humanitarian and practical considerations call for a judicially declared immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.