Ward v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2008
1 district · 21 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 State v. Hector · Parson v. State · State v. Ponthier · State v. Phillips
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I have instructed you that an element of the offense charged and included offenses is that the defendant acted with a given state of mind, namely, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence. It is, of course, difficult to know what is going on in another person’s mind. Therefore, the law permits the jury to draw an inference or, in other words, to reach a conclusion about a defendant’s state of mind from the facts and circumstances surrounding the act charged against the defendant. In reaching this conclusion, you may consider whether a reasonable man in the defendant’s circumstances would have had or lacked the required state of mind. You should, however, keep in mind at all times that it is the defendant’s state of mind that is at issue here, and in order to convict the defendant you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he, in fact, acted with the state of mind required for the offense under consideration, as explained in these instructions. The defendant contends that the shooting was accidental. You must consider whether the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant, by his voluntary act, brought about the death of Anna V. Watson, which would not have happened but for the defendant’s act. You must also consider whether the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the state of mind required for the offense in question, that is, whether the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly or with criminal negligence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. State · Mole v. State“"Exploration of that issue was an appropriate subject for cross examination [of Jenkins] and it was erroneously terminated and qualified by the Trial Judge's instruction to the jury." 366 A. 2d at 1196 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ward 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.