Harshaw v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Matthew Armstrong v. State of Arkansas (2020), McCoy v. State (2002)
53 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 Travis v. State · Allison v. State · Rainey v. State · Bruder v. State · Cobb 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n other words, if a person is reckless in forming the belief that the use of force is necessary, he may still be subject to prosecution for an offense that requires a mens rea of recklessness. 1 1 The Arkansas Criminal Code is one of only a few modern codes that follow section 3.09(2) of the Model Penal Code in this respect and treat homicide in imperfect self-defense as a problem of "reckless manslaughter, or of negligent homicide, depending upon whether the defendant's belief as to the necessity of the homicide was reckless or negligent." Wayne R. LaFave et al., Substantive Criminal Law § 7.11, at 272 n. 6 (1986) (emphasis added). See also the Original Commentary to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-614 , formerly Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-514 (Repl. 1977), which states: Section 41-514 applies to situations in which force is recklessly or negligently employed. Under such circumstances the defense of justification cannot be successfully interposed in a prosecution for an offense established by proof of reckless or negligent conduct. In so providing the Code is aligned with the stance of the Model Penal Code Reporter "[W]e do not believe a person ought to be convicted for a crime of intention where he has labored under a mistake such that, had the facts been as he supposed, he would have been free from guilt. The unreasonableness of an alleged belief may be evidenced [sic] that it was not in fact held, but if the tribunal was satisfied that the belief was held, the defendant in a prosecutio”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) When a person believes that the use of physical force is necessary for any purpose justifying that use of physical force under this subchapter but the person is reckless or negligent either in forming that belief or in employing an excessive degree of physical force, the justification afforded by this subchapter is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish a culpable mental state. (b) When a person is justified under this subchapter in using physical force but he or she recklessly or negligently injures or creates a substantial risk of injury to a third party, the justification afforded by this subchapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the recklessness or negligence toward the third party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Schnarr v. State · Nelson v. State“According to Mr. Harshaw’s testimony and that of other eyewitnesses, Mr. Cunningham then made several statements insinuating that if there was a problem, he would settle it with a gun: • “Oh, that’s all right. I’ll just go get my gun and shoot it up.” • “It’ll be some pistol play out here.” • “1’11-get my nine and shoot this MF up.” • “If there was a problem, I’d have a gun.” • “Well, you know, if it was a problem, I’d have my gun and I’d shoot — be shooting it up out here, you know.” • “K-3 [Casey Cunningham] ain’t no punk. If I got a problem, I just boom boom boom like that.” Thereafter, Mr. Harshaw testified that he and Mr. Cunningham both turned and went to their respective cars. Several eyewitnesses stated that Mr. Cunningham reached into his car through the window on the driver’s side of the car. At the same time, Mr. Harshaw went to the trunk of his car, opened it, and retrieved a shotgun. As Mr. Cunningham came back up from reaching into the car, Mr. Harshaw shot him in the chest. Mr. Harshaw testified that he was afraid Mr. Cunningham was about to pull a pistol from his car and shoot him. As it turned out, Mr. Cunningham did not have a gun.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. State
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.