Schlacter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The question of a person’s criminal intent at the time of the commission of a crime not related to an issue of insanity is a direct question of fact for the jury and not a proper subject for expertise or opinion. Simpson v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 495 , 381 N.E.2d 1229 . A psychologist’s testimony in this regard would have been nothing more than hearsay and was not necessary as an aid for the jury’s determination of the issue of the presence or absence of criminal intent. Simpson, supra. Of like legal import was the rejected testimony of appellant’s relatives which described past episodes in which he would act in a violent manner towards one of them, then suddenly stop, and later act as though nothing had happened, and claim no recollection of those events. Such testimony would not have provided the jury with information useful in determining whether appellant had the requisite criminal intent during the alleged robbery of the liquor store.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DiTommaso v. State

2. “Defects or imperfections in an affidavit are only grounds for reversal where they prejudice substantial rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Graves v. State