35 Md. App. 98 - Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Jolley v. State (1978), Gregg v. State (2003)
28 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4244
Relies on Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Trudo v. United States · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[WJhenever the issue of competency of an accused to stand trial is raised during the course of a jury trial, the trial judge must determine upon testimony and evidence presented on the record ... whether the accused ‘is unable to understand the nature or the object of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.’ The provision of [Sec. 12-102(a) of the Health General Article] that the court must make determinátion ‘upon testimony and evidence presented on the record’ is mandatory. “Unless and until the trial court makes a determination beyond a reasonable doubt upon testimony and evidence presented on the record that the accused is able to understand the nature or the object of the proceeding against him and to assist in his defense, the trial may not begin or if begun may not continue.” (emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant indicated to me further for the first time yesterday evening that one time [last year] he had been at Clifton T. Perkins for seven months for some type of evaluation. He indicated he wishes me to interpose a plea of ... not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and is not competent to stand trial at this time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no doubt that the issue of competency to stand trial in many cases may involve a necessity for the trial judge to have or indeed, perhaps to seek, the testimony of medically trained psychiatrists before making a determination of competency.... [However, w]e find nothing in the statute to indicate that testimony by a medically trained psychiatrist that the accused is competent to stand trial is necessarily required, before the court may make a determination of competency beyond a reasonable doubt. We did not intend the decision in Colbert [v. State, 18 Md.App. 632 , 308 A.2d 726 (1973)] to indicate otherwise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.