State v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2012
14 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. Madison · 368 So. 2d 719 - State v. Johnson · State v. Smith · 389 So. 2d 384 - State v. Williams
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This section amplifies the three preceding sections, and makes it perfectly clear that the required mental element varies with varying crimes. In some crimes, particularly criminal attempts, ‘specific intent’ is required. In still others, such as negligent homicide, only ‘criminal negligence’ is necessary. The definitions of the great bulk of the crimes in the Code, however, state that there must be an ‘intentional’ production of certain prescribed consequences (for example, ‘Aggravated arson is the intentional damaging * * * or setting fire to any structure * * * ’)• However, in some crimes the production of certain consequences plus a specific intent to produce or accomplish some prescribed consequences is necessary (for example, ‘Forgery is the false making or altering, with intent to defraud, of any signature * * * )' Such an intent is a ‘specific intent. ’ The concluding sentence of this section indicates that when the term ‘intentional’ or ‘intent’ is used alone without modification, it refers to ‘general criminal intent’ as defined in the preceding section. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hoffer
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.