450 So. 2d 898 - Yohn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An issue in this case is whether the Defendant was legally insane when the crime allegedly was committed. You must assume she was sane unless the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt about her sanity. If the Defendant was legally insane, she is not guilty. To find her legally insane, these three (3) elements must be shown to the point you had a reasonable doubt about her sanity: One, the Defendant had a mental infirmity, defect or disease; Two, the condition caused the Defendant to lose her ability to understand or reason accurately; And three, because of the loss of these abilities, the Defendant did not know what she was doing or did not know what — or did not know what would result from her actions, or did not know it was wrong, although she knew what she was doing and its consequences.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State · 452 So. 2d 1079 - Reese v. State

2. “If the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was sane at the time of the offense when the defense of insanity has been raised, is the giving of the present insanity instruction, as set forth in standard jury instruction 3.04(b), along with the general reasonable doubt instruction sufficient, notwithstanding the defendant having specifically requested the Court to instruct the jury that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State · 452 So. 2d 1079 - Reese v. State

3. “INSANITY One of the defenses asserted in this case is that the Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the alleged crime. The law does not hold a person criminally accountable for his conduct while insane, since an insane person is not capable of forming the intent essential to the commission of a crime. A person is sane and responsible for his crime if he has sufficient mental capacity when the crime is committed to understand what he is doing and to understand that his act is wrong. If at the time of an alleged crime a defendant was by reason of mental infirmity, disease or defect unable to understand the nature and quality of his act or its consequences or if he did understand it, was incapable of distinguishing that which is right from that which is wrong, he was legally insane and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Insanity may be permanent, temporary or may come and go. It is for you to determine the question of the sanity of the Defendant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime. Until the contrary is shown by the evidence, the Defendant is presumed to be sane. However, if the evidence tends to raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, the presumption of sanity is overcome. Where insanity of a permanent type, or of a continuing nature, or possessed of the characteristics of a chronic disorder of the mind, as distinguished from temporary insanity, or disorders of the mind produced by violence or disease, is shown to have ex”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State