State v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute. 2. When the actor was reckless or criminally negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in subsection 1 does not apply in a prosecution for any crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lemieux · 355 N.J. Super. 21 - State v. Romano

2. “`to make the existence of all the facts constituting the defense a reasonable hypothesis for the factfinder to entertain.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 355 N.J. Super. 21 - State v. Romano

3. “‘[gjenerally, inconsistent defenses may be interposed in a criminal case.’”

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