Boyer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because they were unaware and failed to assert what appellant urges as a viable defense under § 552.010, V.A.M.S.: “drug abuse with psychosis.” (footnote omitted) The Missouri standard for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel is whether “there has been such failure on the part of the attorney that defendant has not had a fair trial.” (citations omitted) For the omission to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel appellant must show the suggested defense was one which trial counsel could have legitimately asserted on his behalf. He has not so shown. Drug abuse, absent psychosis, is not a defense under § 552.010; therefore, psychosis is the determinative factor. It is clear his trial attorneys considered the possibility of mental disease or defect, including psychosis, and after diligent effort concluded none was present. The best available evidence, the psychiatric evaluations, support the conclusion that Boyer was not psychotic when he committed the crime. The point is without merit, (emphasis added)”

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

2. ““There was no evidence of any bizarre behavior. It appears that there was no indication that he was suffering from a psychotic mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense. VIII. FINDINGS 1) That the accused has a mental disease or a defect within the meaning of Section 552.010. There is a schizophrenia, a chronic undifferentiated type, in remission. 2) That the accused has the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and can assist in his own defense. 3) That the accused did know and appreciate the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his alleged conduct and was capable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. 4) That the accused does not require hospitalization pending further proceedings. IX. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Mr. Mayfield be returned to court for disposition of the charges pending against him. Continue Thorzine Concentrate, 200 mg. A.M. and 200 mg. at h. s. (Signed) Rohidas Patil, M.D. Resident in Psychiatry Fulton State Hospital.””

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