39 Cal. 3d 765 - People v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 166 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 495 - People v. Kelly (1992), 23 Cal. 4th 529 - People v. Coddington (2000)
12 federal appellate · 166 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Morissette v. United States · Robinson v. State of California · United States v. Bailey · United States v. Dotterweich · Leland v. Oregon
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Johnson · People v. K.P.“`Obviously an insane person accused of crime would be inhumanely dealt with if his insanity were considered merely to reduce the degree of his crime or the punishment therefor.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Herrera · State v. Byers““It is now your function to determine the issue raised by the defendant’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. “Such plea now places before you the issue as to whether he was legally sane or legally insane at the time of the commission of each of these crimes. This is the sole issue for you to determine in this proceeding. “Although you may consider evidence of his mental condition before and after the time of the commission of the crime, such evidence is to be considered for the purpose of throwing light on the defendant’s mental condition as it was when the crime was committed. “Mental illness and mental abnormality, in whatever form either may appear, are not necessarily the same as legal insanity. “A person may be mentally ill or mentally abnormal and yet not be legally insane. A person is legally insane when by reason of mental disease or mental defect he was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” (CALJIC No. 4.00.)”
2 later decisions 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.