State v. . Creech’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The test of responsibility is the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time and in respect of the matter under investigation. S. v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457 , 6 S.E. 657 ; S. v. Brandon, 53 N.C. 463 . He who knows the right and still the wrong pursues is amenable to the criminal law. S. v. Jenkins, 208 N.C. 740 , 182 S.E. 324 . On the other hand, if “the accused should be in such a state of mental disease as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing wrong,” the law does not hold him accountable for his acts, for guilt arises from volition, and not from a diseased mind. S. v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 376 . ‘We are aware of the criticism of this standard by some psychiatrists and others. Still, the critics have offered nothing better. It has the merit of being well established, practical and so plain “that he may run that readeth it.” Hab. 2:2. Moreover, it should be remembered that the criminal law applies equally to all sorts and conditions of people. It ought to be sufficiently clear to be understood by the ordinary citizen.’ ‘ . . . Knowledge of right and wrong is the exclusive test of criminal responsibility in a majority of American jurisdictions. The science of psychiatry has made tremendous strides since that test was laid down in M’Nagkten’s Case, but the progress of science has not reached a point where its learning would compel us to require the states to eliminate the right and wrong ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Humphrey · State v. Helms

2. “"It is the law of this jurisdiction that an affirmative defense, e. g., drunkenness or insanity, which partakes of the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, is to be satisfactorily proved by the defendant unless it arises out of the evidence produced against him. (Citations omitted.) The onus of showing `justification, excuse or mitigation,' to the satisfaction of the jury, is on the defendant. (Citations omitted.) * * * The presumption that the accused was sane and responsible for his acts persists until the contrary is shown to the satisfaction of the jury. Therefore, if the jury are left in doubt as to the sanity or responsibility of the accused, the presumption prevails."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Caddell

3. “[T]he whole matter in respect of the burden of proof and the burden of satisfaction, where insanity or mental debility is interposed as a defense, is thoroughly discussed in the case of S. v. Harris, [ 223 N.C. 697 , 28 S.E. 2d 232 ], and it would only be a work of supererogation to restate it here. The presumption that the accused was sane and responsible for his acts persists until the contrary is shown to the satisfaction of the jury. Therefore, if the jury are left in doubt as to the sanity or responsibility of the accused, the presumption prevails.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Adcock