Martin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The mere fact that a man says he killed another in self-defense, or describes events which show that to be the case, does not have to be accepted at face value where the jury may reasonably infer from his- incredibility or the inherent improbability of his own testimony, or all the revealed circumstances, that one or more of the several factors that qualify or enter into the legal right of self-defense were missing. Among these are reasonableness of the defendant’s belief of imminent danger of great bodily injury or loss of life, the necessity or reasonable judgment of necessity to shoot to avert that danger, real or apparent, and the absence of aggression by the defendant. * * *.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Townsend v. Commonwealth

2. ““It ‘sometimes happens that the evidence is all one way, and makes out a case of self-defense,’ in which event the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal * * * We do not believe, however, that this is such an instance * * * Martin was not subject to the menace of a deadly weapon * * * Redden had no warning and, so far as the evidence reveals, never knew Martin had a gun. * * It is our opinion that this is a case in which the evidence as a whole does not demand a factual conclusion that Martin was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm or that the apparent necessity of shooting Redden was reasonable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Commonwealth

3. ““The argument that there was no justification for an instruction or instructions on involuntary manslaughter is well taken. In the recent case of Shanks v. Commonwealth, Ky., 390 S.W.2d 888 (1965), under evidence more suggestive of accident vis-a-vis intentional killing than in this instance, it was held that the defendant was not entitled to such an instruction. Where a deadly weapon was used, and where the accused admits that he was attempting to defend and protect himself with the deadly weapon, there is no room for argument that he did not intend the result of the action taken by him.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vinson v. Commonwealth