State v. Schmiedt’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2025
1 federal appellate · 17 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 State v. King · State v. McNeely · 46 Ill. App. 3d 273 - People v. Miner · State v. Oster · State v. Henry
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Specific words used in instructions which are self-explanatory and readily understood need not be specifically defined. State v. Henry, 87 S.D. 454 , 210 N.W.2d 169 (1973). The word “attempt” has been held to be such a word: According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word “attempt” means, “to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect * * That one must intend to do that which one is attempting is implicit in the foregoing definition. (See R. Perkins, Perkins on Criminal Law 573 (2d ed.1969).) We feel that the jury so understood the use of the word “attempt” in the instructions given. Where the terms employed in an instruction are of general use, and are not technical terms or words of art, they need not be defined, in the absence of anything in the charge to obscure their meaning. (People v. Monroe, 32 Ill.App.3d 482 , 335 N.E.2d 783 (3d Dist.1975).) People v. Miner, 46 Ill.App.3d 273 , 4 Ill.Dec. 766, 773-74 , 360 N.E.2d 1141, 1148-1149 (1977). Accord, State v. King, 287 N.C. 645 , 215 S.E.2d 540 (1975) (word “attempted” is so well understood by the average person that it would have been a waste of time to define it); State v. McNeely, 244 N.C. 737 , 94 S.E.2d 853 (1956) (word “attempt” is clearly understandable).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The same rationale is applicable to SDCL 22-18-l.l(5)(“attempts by physical menace with a deadly weapon to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm.”) It is silent as to intent and the only intent necessary is a general intent to try to put someone in fear by physical menace with a deadly weapon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. St. John“Jury instructions are adequate when, considered as a whole, they correctly state the law and properly inform the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jemison
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.