Eagan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001
2 federal appellate · 10 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 · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · California v. Prysock · Ortiz v. State · Terry 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nevertheless, we find no reversible error in the court's having given the instruction. Although there was some evidence presented that the Defendant may have been intoxicated at the time he committed the crime, it was never interposed as a defense; and the record reveals that his intoxication, if existing, was not of the debilitating degree that could have raised a reasonable doubt upon the existence of the requisite mens rea. 170 Defendant did not testify. The only evidence of his intoxication came from Officer LoBianco and from Defendant's sister, Katherine Roberts.... 171 Defendant gave two statements to the police.... In neither statement, however, did Defendant make any claim that he was intoxicated or under any disability at any time during the criminal episode. 172 Immediately following the criminal events, Defendant drove an automobile through the city streets some considerable distance, to the home of his sister, reported the episode to her and asked for assistance for his friend who had been cut. He had the presence of mind to heed her advice and to contact Officer LoBianco, to guide him back to the scene of the crime and to fabricate a story concerning his involvement. The only relevant evidence belied a mental state so impaired by alcohol or drugs as to preclude the existence of the mens rea. The issue was simply not present, hence the giving of the instruction, although error, was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Before a confession may be admitted into evidence, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect intelligently and knowingly waived his rights not to incriminate himself and to have an attorney present. See, Chamness v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 474, 476 ; see generally, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . However, this Court will not reweigh the evidence in evaluating a trial court's decision to admit a confession, but will only determine whether the record includes sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's ruling that the confession was voluntarily made. See, e.g., Ortiz v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 549, 553 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 , 1191 and authorities cited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coff 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.