State v. McNulty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 104 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The evidence must have been discovered after trial; (2) Such evidence could not have been discovered before or at trial through the exercise of due diligence; (3) The evidence must be material to the issues and not cumulative or offered solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) The evidence is of such nature as would probably change the result of a later trial.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castro v. Rubin · 5 Haw. App. 90 - State v. Teves

2. “INSTRUCTION NO. 24 Justifiable use of force in defense of another person is a defense to the charge of Murder in the Second Degree. The burden is on the prosecution to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not justifiable. If the prosecution does not meet its burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty. The use of force upon or toward another person is justified to protect a third person when: (1) Under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, Bridgette Fleming or Josh LaCroix would have been justified in using such force to protect himself or herself; and (2) The defendant reasonably believed that his intervention was immediately necessary to protect Bridgette Fleming or Josh LaCroix. The reasonableness of the defendant's belief that the use of such protective force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as the defendant reasonably believed them to be. Bridgette Fleming and Josh LaCroix would have been justified in using deadly force upon or toward Richard Rabellizsa if they reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself or herself on the present occasion against death, serious bodily injury or rape. The use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. VANDENBERG v. State · 5 Haw. App. 210 - State v. Casipe

3. “appellant would have been entitled, upon proper request, to have the trial court specifically instruct the jury that the prosecution’s burden of persuasion included proving that appellant had not acted in self-defense at the time of the alleged crime. However, because he failed to object at trial, appellant is now precluded from raising the failure of the court to give such an instruction as a ground for reversal on appeal, and the court’s general burden of proof instruction will be deemed sufficient to cover the issue of self-defense. In determining the sufficiency of a particular instruction, or part of a charge, it is not to be considered apart from its context, or the rest of the charge. Both in civil and in criminal cases the instructions of the court must be read together as one connected whole, to ascertain whether they correctly declare the law. The omissions or inaccuracies of one instruction may be cured by the contents of the other instructions, or some of them, and if, when the instructions of the court are considered as a whole, they correctly state the law and are not inconsistent or misleading, the fact that a particular instruction or isolated paragraph may be objectionable, as inaccurate or misleading, will not constitute ground for reversal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Yasuichi Inoue · State v. Pinero