State v. Crocker’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably State v. Joyner (1993), Myrick v. James (1982)
1 district · 71 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 890 · 10 U.S.C. § 933 · 10 U.S.C. § 934 · 15 U.S.C. § 13A (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1715
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Patterson v. New York · Thornhill v. Alabama · United States v. Harriss · Arizona v. Washington
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a respondent of reasonable and normal intelligence, would, by the language of the indictment, be adequately informed of the crime charged and the nature thereof in order to be able to defend and, if convicted, make use of the conviction as a basis of a plea of former jeopardy, should the occasion arise.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mahoney · State v. Corson“On or about the 10th day of December, 1983, in the County of Somerset, State of Maine, EDWARD B. MICHAUD, did engage in conduct which manifested a depraved indifference to the value of human life in that (a) a reasonable and prudent person in MICHAUD’s situation would have known that there was a very high degree of risk that MICHAUD’s conduct would cause serious bodily injury; and (b) MICHAUD’s conduct, when viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances, reflected such an indifference to the value of human life that it would be generally regarded by a reasonable and prudent person as depraved, and, such conduct in fact caused the death of Garrett Brann, all in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(B) and (1-A) (1983 & Supp.1983). An indictment is sufficient if it contains such plain, concise, and definite allegations of the essential facts constituting the offense as shall adequately apprise a defendant of reasonable and normal intelligence of the act charged, enabling him to defend himself, and, upon conviction or acquittal, to make use of the judgment as the basis for a plea of former jeopardy, should the occasion arise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michaud“1. A defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. The defendant shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he lacks criminal responsibility as described in this subsection. 2. As used in this section, "mental disease or defect” means any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs the processes and capacity of a person to control his actions. An abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal conduct or excessive use of alcohol, drugs or similar substances, in and of itself, does not constitute a mental disease or defect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michaud
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.