State v. Guest’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 36 Cal. 3d 638 - People v. Olsen (1984), State v. Maldonado (1994)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 61 Cal. 2d 529 - People v. Hernandez · Kimoktoak v. State · People v. Ratz · Speidel v. State · Alex 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a prosecution under AS 11.41.410-11.41.440, whenever a provision of law defining an offense depends upon a victim's being under a certain age, it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant (1) reasonably believed the victim to be that age or older; and (2) undertook reasonable measures to verify that the victim was that age or older.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jager v. State · State v. Fremgen“caused primarily by the industrial revolution, out of which grew the necessity of imposing more stringent duties on those connected with particular industries, trades, properties, or activities that affect public health, safety or welfare.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has been urged in other jurisdictions that where an offender is aware he is committing an act of fornication he therefore has sufficient criminal intent to justify a conviction for statutory rape because what was done would have been unlawful under the facts as he thought them to be. We reject this view. While it is true that under such circumstances a mistake of fact does not serve as a complete defense, we believe that it should serve to reduce the offense to that which the offender would have been guilty of had he not been mistaken. Thus, if an accused had a reasonable belief that the person with whom he had sexual intercourse was sixteen years of age or older, he may not be convicted of statutory rape. If, however, he did not have a reasonable belief that the victim was eighteen years of age or older, he may still be criminally liable for contribution to the delinquency of a minor.”
2 later decisions 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.