Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Riss v. Angel (1997), Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp. (1988)
2 district · 36 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 Keeble v. United States · Rivera v. Delaware · Coastal Barge Corp. v. Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board · In Re the Application of Emmett S. Hickman Co. · Rivera v. State
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Where the trier of fact determines that, at the time of the conduct charged, a defendant suffered from a psychiatric disorder which substantially disturbed such person’s thinking, feeling or behavior and/or that such psychiatric disorder left such person with insufficient willpower to choose whether the person would do the act or refrain from doing it, although physically capable, the trier of fact shall return a verdict of “guilty, but mentally ill.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“statutes are passed by the General Assembly as a whole and not in parts... [and] each part of the statute must be read in context to produce a harmonious whole,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Delaware statute establishing the verdict of “guilty, but mentally ill,” 11 Del.C. 401(b), requires the jury to find that at the time of the offense, the defendant: (1) suffers from a psychiatric disorder; and (2) the disorder leaves the defendant with insufficient will power to choose whether he would do an act or refrain from doing it. [The psychiatric expert’s] testimony on cross-examination provided evidence of two psychiatric disorders: longstanding paranoid personality disorder and post-traumatic distress. Therefore, the first requirement of Section 401(b) was established. The second requirement of the statute is “insufficient willpower to choose” to act or refrain from acting. Although [the psychiatric expert’s] opinion was not expressly phrased in the statutory terms of “insufficient willpower to choose,” his testimony that Daniels’ actions at his sister’s house were “automatic” and “impulsive” would support that conclusion by the trier of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Aizupitis v. State
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.