State v. Bouwman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 41 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * The defendant has the right to offer evidence which disputes the physical facts upon which the inference of the fact of intent is sought to be established by the prosecution. However, psychiatric evidence is of no value at this part of the trial since it does not relate to the physical evidence upon which the jury is to determine the issue of intent. Rather, such expert testimony relates to the mental capacity of the defendant and is properly part of defendant’s case wherein he must establish the defense of mental illness by the appropriate standard. (Emphasis added.)”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brink · State v. Brom

2. “May the court admit, at the trial of a defendant charged with murder in the first degree, expert psychiatric opinion testimony (not offered to establish a defense under Minn.Stat. § 611.026) that the defendant, at the time of the alleged crime, lacked the mental capacity to premeditate the killings or to form the specific intent to kill?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fratzke · State v. Bouwman

3. “Under the statutes of Minnesota a person is not criminally liable for his acts when at the time of committing these acts because of a defect of reason caused by a mental illness the person did not know the nature of his acts or did not know that they were wrong. * * * First, the defendant did not know the nature of his act. This means that the defendant did not understand what he was doing. If because of a defect of reason the defendant did not know what act he was doing or what the consequences of his act would be, then the defendant did not know the nature of his act. Second, even if the defendant knew the nature of his act, the defendant did not understand that his act was wrong. The word wrong is also used in the moral sense and does not only refer to a violation of a statute. Stated another way, even if the defendant realized that his act violated the law, the defendant is not criminally liable if because of a defect of reason caused by a mental illness the defendant did not understand that his act was morally wrong. Third, the failure of the defendant to know the nature of his act or that it was wrong must have been the result of a defect of reason caused by a mental illness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Schreiber