53 Cal. 3d 955 - People v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 408 - People v. Mincey (1992), 15 Cal. 4th 1 - People v. Marshall (1997)
7 federal appellate · 136 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 Francis v. Franklin · Cage v. Louisiana · 43 Cal. 3d 1104 - People v. Anderson · 43 Cal. 3d 171 - People v. Ledesma · 53 Cal. 3d 771 - People v. Cooper
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To find the special circumstance referred to in these instructions as murder in the commission of robbery or burglary is true, it must be proved, one, that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in, was an accomplice or an aider and abettor in the commission of a robbery or burglary; two, that the defendant intended to kill a human being or intended to aid another in the killing of a human being; three, that the murder was committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crimes of burglary or robbery or to facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid detection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““If you find the defendant in this case guilty-of murder of the first degree, you must then determine if one or more of the following special circumstances are true or not true: murder perpetrated by a destructive device and murder in the commission of arson. “The People have the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a special circumstance is true, you must find it to be not true. “// you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was either the actual killer, a co-conspirator, or an aider or abetter, but you are unable to decide which, then you must also find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended either to kill a human being or with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the actual killer to aid and abet another in the killing of a human being in order to find the special circumstance to be true. On the other hand, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the actual killer, you need not find that the defendant intended to kill a human being in order to find the special circumstance to be true. “You must decide separately each special circumstance alleged in this case. If you cannot agree as to all of the special circumstances, but can agree as to one, you must make your finding as to the one upon which you do agree. “In order to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true or untrue, you must agree unanimously. “You will state your special finding as to wheth”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To find that the special circumstance, referred to in these instructions as murder in the commission or attempted commission of robbery or rape is true, it must be proved: [¶] (1) That the murder was committed while the defendant was [engaged in] in the [commission] [or] [attempted commission] of a robbery or rape. [¶] 2. That the murder was committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crime of robbery or rape or to facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid detection. In other words, the special circumstances referred to in these instructions is not established if the robbery or attempted rape was merely incidental to the commission of the murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.