Binnie v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably State v. Smith (2003), Longshore v. State (2007)
116 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 Bruce v. State · Kucharczyk v. State · Sims v. State · Smith v. State · Reynolds v. State
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Dean v. State“For us to conclude that jury instructions encompassing the elements of theft by possession fairly cover the honest belief defense when generated by the evidence would be for us to ignore the legislative intent in enacting § 343(c)(2) and render the language of this section surplusage and a nullity. In effect, this could create a per se rule that jury instructions are never required for a § 343(c)(2) defense in a § 342(c) theft by possession case. We do not believe the legislature intended such an anomalous result. As we see it, then, when the legislature explicitly enumerated four defenses to the crime of theft, it intended a defendant to be entitled to a jury instruction on any defense generated by the evidence. We hold that an instruction that merely delineates the mental elements of theft by possession under § 342(c) does not fairly cover the honest belief defense under § 342(c)(2) and consequently the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to the honest belief defense in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The commentary to the Model Penal Code (Model Code) is particularly instructive as to the purpose for the inclusion of the honest belief defense in its draft. First, the commentary notes that “it seems important to make it clear beyond doubt that an honest belief that the property does not belong to another should be a defense to theft.” Model Penal Code and Commentaries, [ (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980)], § 223.1, at 153. Second, the commentary states that recklessness or negligence should not serve as a basis for theft liability.”
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.