MacK v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
December 1999
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hutton v. United States · Smith v. State · Glover v. State · Taylor v. State · Morris v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When the defense of entrapment is raised, the successful prosecution of the case becomes dependent upon whether the State can prove that the prohibited conduct of the defendant was not the product of the efforts of the law enforcement officials involved or that the accused was predisposed to engage in such conduct. Ryan v. State, (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 115 ; Williams v. State, (1980) [274] Ind. [578], 412 N.E.2d 1211 . The standard of review in a case such as this, where the issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to- support the conclusion that the defendant had a predisposition to commit these crimes, is the same as that for other sufficiency claims. Voirol v. State, (1980), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 861 ." Mack v. State (1983), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 200, 202 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hopper v. State · McGowan v. State“(a) It is a defense that: (1) The prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law-enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and (2) The person was not predisposed to commit the offense. (b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State“defendant's willingness to deal with the undercover officers, his knowledge of the criminal market and of a source of supply, his familiarity with drug terminology, the multiple sales and defendant's readiness to participate in future sales.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State
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.