Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 17 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When an accused is relying upon the defense of insanity at the time of the crime charged, the jury should be instructed (1) that there is a presumption the accused was sane at that time, (2) that the burden is upon him to show that he was then insane, (3) that if any evidence was introduced by him or by the State fairly raising doubt upon the issue of his sanity at that time, the presumption of sanity ceases to exist, (4) that the State then has the burden to establish the sanity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and (5) that if the whole proof upon that issue leaves the jury with a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity at that time the jury must accord him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 W. Va. 547 - State v. Grimm · 163 W. Va. 571 - Edwards v. Leverette

2. ““[t]he applicable principles of law were settled long ago in this State. The presumption of sanity places the burden of showing insanity at the time of commission of a crime upon him who asserts it as a defense. Mullendore v. State 183 Tenn. 53, 60 , 191 S.W.2d 149 (1945); Spurlock v. State, 212 Tenn. 132,134 , 368 S.W.2d 299 (1963). While the State is not bound to establish the defendant’s sanity in the first instance, if the defendant’s or the State’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity, such evidence relieves the defendant of further proof upon that issue and shifts the burden of proof to the State [Dove v. State, 50 (3 Heis.) 348, 370-374 (1871)], Stuart v. State, 60 (1 Baxt.) Tenn. 178 (1873); King v. State, 91 Tenn. 617, 648 , 20 S.W. 169 (1892). Whenever testimony is introduced countervailing the presumption of sanity and raising a question of the accused’s insanity, the State must then establish his sanity to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 89 , 135 S.W. 327 (1910); Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378 , 17 S.Ct. 360, 362 , 41 L.Ed. 750, 754 .””

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