Henning v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2005
20 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 Rideout v. United States · Loyd v. State · Lawrence v. State · 182 Ind. App. 156 - Roddy v. State · Thomas 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In determining whether to instruct the jury that they may return verdicts on lesser-included offenses, the trial court must apply a two-part test. First by examining the statutes defining greater and lesser-included offenses, and the charging instrument, the court determines whether the lesser-included offenses to be instructed are inherently included in the greater charge, or 'factually' included in the charging instrument's allegations of the means by which the greater crime charged allegedly was committed. Second, the court must make a determination of whether, assuming that an offense was committed, the evidence would, prima facie, warrant a conviction for a lesser-included offense, or could only warrant a conviction for the principal charge, in which case the lesser-included - offense _ instructions should not be given. See, Jones v. State ((1982), Ind., 438 N.E.2d 972, 974-76 ; McNary v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1248, 1250-51 ; Lawrence v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 330, 837-88 , 375 N.E.2d 208, 212-18 ; Roddy v. State (1979), 182 Ind.App. 156, 175-79 , 394 N.E.2d 1098, 1110-1112 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While the evidence at trial demonstrated that the victim received blows constituting "rude and insolent touching", the sime qua non of battery under Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), because the evidence also conclusively demonstrated that a robbery took place, and the only question was whether Defendant participated, an instruction on battery was not justified by the evidence, would have invited a compromise verdict, and was properly refused." Henning v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 547, 551 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crowe v. State“whether the material will aid the jury in a proper consideration of the case, whether the party will be thereby unduly prejudiced, and whether the material may be subjected to improper use by the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Van Sant 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.