Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 17 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We advise the reader of recent significant events. In Williams v. State, (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 954 , the Supreme Court held robbery as presently defined in IC 35-42-5-1 (Burns Code Ed., Repl. 1979) is a specific intent offense because of the inclusion of the word ‘knowingly.’ See also Williams v. State, (1979) Ind., 393 N.E.2d 149 ; Pardue v. State (1980), Ind., 403 N.E.2d 1072 . We respectfully suggest this interpretation of ‘knowingly,’ which we believe refers to the prohibited conduct, is general intent or mens rea, as opposed to specific intent. Therefore, Williams, 402 N.E.2d 954 , considerably expands the availability of the intoxication defense. However, this expansion is but temporary due to the 1980 amendment, Acts 1980, P.L. 205: “(b) Voluntary intoxication is a defense only to the extent that it negates an element of an offense referred to by the phrase ‘with intent to’ or ‘with an intention to.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Brook v. State

2. ““[S]o long as the charged offense contains a lesser included offense which does not require a ‘specific intent,’ the accused’s voluntary intoxication does not operate as a complete defense; but, instead, operates as a mitigating defense, warranting a conviction for one of the lesser included offenses that does not require a specific intent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State