Coleman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 4 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. “(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action. “(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hamilton v. State · Moor v. Licciardello

2. “The Code Provision Section 464 sets generally the permissible limits on the use of force in self-pro tection. Subsection (1) permits the use of force against another person only when the actor believes the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against that other’s use of force on the present occasion. The actor must show that he did believe that force was necessary and that his response was an immediate reaction to a present necessity. Note, however, that a reasonable belief is not required. All that is relevant to the actor’s guilt is that he did honestly believe it necessary to use force in his own defense .... Note that this section is consistent with § 441, relating to mistake of fact, which does not require reasonableness. Of course, if the actor’s reaction deviates too substantially from the norm, he runs the risk that the jury will not believe him. But if he honestly believes he needs to act in self-defense, the criminal law will be powerless to stop him, no matter how unreasonable his belief. It is best, then, that the official statement of the law be realistic. Subsection (2) sets the permissible limits of the defendant’s reaction. He need not retreat, unless subsection (5) requires him to do so. He may also estimate the amount of force required by the circumstances as he believes them to be; he is not required to be objective, since the amount of time available for deliberation is obviously limited. The rules change substantially when ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moor v. Licciardello

3. “the new Criminal Code has changed the standard to be applied by the trier of fact in determining the issue of justification. The former objective test of what a reasonable man would have believed under the circumstances, as to the necessity of using force in self-defense, has been supplanted by the subjective test of what the defendant actually believed as to such necessity. In applying the subjective standard and in testing the defendant’s actual belief as to the necessity of force for self-protection, it is important to note that s 307(a) of the new Code provides that ‘the jury may consider whether a reasonable man in the defendant’s circumstances at the time of the offense would have had or lacked the requisite belief.’ Thus, the ‘reasonable man’ test is retained as a factor to be considered with all others in the determination of the issue of justification; but it is not necessarily the controlling factor as heretofore.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 2d 643 - Lloyd v. Jefferson