People v. Maes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It has generally been held that where the threat of unlawful use of force is alleged, the defense is available only if the threat is one of present, impending, and imminent use of force, and that a threat of future injury is not enough. People v. Harmon, 53 Mich. App. 482 , 220 N.W.2d [2] 12, aff'd, 394 Mich. 625 , 232 N.W.2d 187 (1975); see generally, Annot. 60 A.L.R.3d 678 ; Annot. 40 A.L.R.2d 908 ; 1 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, § 123 (R. Anderson ed. 1957). However, the question whether a threat is imminent is, in all but the clearest of cases, to be decided by the trier of fact after considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the defendant's opportunity and ability to avoid the harm. People v. Harmon, supra. Unlike a generalized fear of retaliation, which did not warrant a choice of evils instruction in People v. Robertson, 36 Colo. App. 367 , 543 P.2d 533 (1975), the defendant here testified that he was specifically threatened with injury to himself and to his family if he refused to hold the heroin or if he reported the incident to the authorities. Defendant's failure to identify the inmates who threatened him goes to the credibility of the explanation, rather than to the submissibility of the defense to the jury. See Pittman v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. App. 1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Wash. App. 242 - State v. Turner

2. “'have somebody from the outside do something to [his] wife and son.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Wash. App. 242 - State v. Turner