State v. Pittman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 146 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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[F]ear resulting from an attack can constitute a basis for voluntary manslaughter. Yet the presence of fear does not end the inquiry regarding the propriety of a voluntary manslaughter instruction. We have consistently held that sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation is defined as an act or event that " must be such as would naturally disturb the sway of reason, and render the mind of an ordinary person incapable of cool reflection , and produce what, according to human experience, may be called an uncontrollable impulse to do violence ." While the act or event "need not dethrone the reason entirely, or shut out knowledge and volition," it must cause a person to lose control . We reaffirm the principle that a person's fear immediately following an attack or threatening act may cause the person to act in a sudden heat of passion. However, the mere fact that a person is afraid is not sufficient, by itself, to entitle a defendant to a voluntary manslaughter charge. Consistent with our law on voluntary manslaughter, in order to constitute "sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation," the fear must be the result of sufficient legal provocation and cause the defendant to lose control and create an uncontrollable impulse to do violence. Succinctly stated, to warrant a voluntary manslaughter charge, the defendant's fear must manifest itself in an uncontrollable impulse to do violence . A person may act in a deliberate, controlled manner, notwithstandin”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Oates · State v. Niles

2. “[T]he determination that a defendant has been deprived of this right is not based on the passage of a specific period of time, but instead is analyzed in terms of the circumstances of each case, balancing the conduct of the prosecution and the defense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reaves · State v. Hunsberger

3. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Manning · State v. Andrews