State v. Michlitsch’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 96 So. 3d 412 - State v. Adkins (2012), State v. Agee (1990)
25 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 Patterson v. New York · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · California v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is an affirmative defense to a charge of possession of a controlled substance or possession with intent to deliver that the defendant unwittingly or unknowingly possessed the controlled substance. The defendant has the burden of proving this affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 12.1-01-03(3), N.D.C.C.; see also State v. Rehling, 426 N.W.2d 6, 7 (N.D.1988). Because guilty knowledge is not an essential element of either offense, the State is not required to prove the nonexistence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 210 , 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2327 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); State v. Pfister, 264 N.W.2d 694, 699-700 (N.D.1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Interest of KS · State v. Holte“Although we adhere to our conclusion that the Legislature intended that possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver constitute strict liability offenses, it would be difficult to sustain these statutory provisions, the violation of which are punishable as felonies in many circumstances, against a constitutional attack when mounted by a person who possessed the controlled substance unwitting-ly_ The [State v. Cleppe, 96 Wash.2d 373 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981) ] affirmative defense scheme is a logical accommodation which recognizes the reasons for both the legislative designation of the crimes as strict liability offenses and the constitutional interests of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Egan“ameliorate[ ] the harshness of the almost strict criminal liability our law imposes for unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. If the defendant can affirmatively establish that his `possession' was unwitting, then he had no possession for which the law will convict,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.