State v. Downey’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably State v. Colon (2004), Daniel v. Commissioner of Correction (2000)
38 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · Dunaway v. New York · State v. Golding · Hullum 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To draw such an inference is a proper function of the jury, provided, of course, that any inference drawn complies with the standards for inferences, which were explained in connection with my instructions on circumstantial evidence. “Now, let me go back over that because that’s a heavy'—what a person’s purpose, intention or knowledge has been is usually a matter to be determined by inference. No person is able to testify that he looked into another’s mind and saw therein a certain purpose or intention. The only way in which a jury can ordinarily determine what a person’s purpose, intention or knowledge was at any given time, aside from that person’s own statements, if any, is by determining what that person’s conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding that conduct, and from those infer what his purpose, intention or knowledge was. “To draw such an inference is a proper function of you, as the jury, provided, of course, that any inference drawn complies with the standards for inferences, which I have explained to you previously. “Our law is that a person who intentionally aids in the commission of the crime is guilty of that very crime. Thus, you must find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally assisted others to commit the crime of murder.” (Emphasis added.) The trial court further stated that “[ijntent to cause death may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wounds i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Otero“he shot her and she got what she deserved. In the weeks preceding the shooting, the defendant, on two occasions, made disparaging remarks and threatening actions to the victim. On both occasions the defendant was intoxicated. Approximately one to two months before the shooting, he was seen making a motion with his hand as if it were a gun and pointing at the victim's shoulder. While making the motion, he said,”
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.