5 Md. App. 584 - Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 1986 · most notably Bartholomey v. State (1972), Langworthy v. State (1979)
28 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · Gleaton v. State · 4 Md. App. 689 - Strawderman v. State · Driver v. State · Costello 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Price v. State, 159 Md. 491 (1930), by a four to three decision, the Court of Appeals reversed a judgment -on a conviction of murder in the first degree, holding that where a defense of insanity was raised the jury should have rendered a separate verdict on the issue of insanity, by a proper construction of the statute then in effect, Md. Code, (1924), Art. 59, § 6. This statute had been in effect for more than a century with a consistent practice contrary to the holding of the. majority. Berman v. Warden, 232 Md. 642, 646 . Shortly thereafter, in 1931, the General Assembly amended the section to require a preliminary hearing on insanity and by Ch. 81, Acts of the Special Session of 1933, reinstated the former practice. Codified as Art. 59, § 7 the Act provided, among other things, that if a verdict does not contain a finding on insanity, a finding of sanity is conclusively presumed from the verdict of guilty of the crime charged. In Berman v. Warden, supra, Berman, who had been convicted in 1928, raised under post conviction procedures the same issue which had been raised in Price and relied on that opinion. Denying the application for leave to appeal the Court assumed but did not decide that the statute, construed in Price and applicable at the time of Berman’s conviction, required a separate verdict on the issue of insanity and that the failure to render such a verdict was not cured by a general verdict of guilty in which a finding of sanity would seem to be implicit. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the court shall direct the jury to render a special verdict on the sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged crime. [/</.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langworthy 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.