State v. Gullett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition whether from alcohol, drugs or other substance is criminally responsible for conduct unless such condition: (1) Negatives the existence of the mental states of purpose or a knowledge when such mental states are elements of the offense charged or of an included offense; or (2) Is involuntarily produced and deprived him of the capacity to know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Burroughs · Anderson v. State

2. ““Section 562.076 does not mean that because an intent is the product of an intoxicated mind that such intoxication is a defense. It is not every degree of intoxication that is a defense. ‘The “intoxicated or drugged condition” to which the statute refers is not the condition of alcohol-induced incandescence or being well-lit that lowers the threshold of inhibition or stirs the impulse to criminal adventures. It is that degree of complete drunkenness which makes a person incapable of forming intent to perform an act or commit a crime.’ State v. Guiden, 46 Wis.2d 328 , 174 N.W.2d 488, 490 (1970). “The test for measuring the required condition has been expressed in many ways. ‘[U]nless he is so intoxicated that he is utterly devoid of consciousness or awareness of what he is doing’, State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728, 733 (1972); ‘utterly incapable’, State v. Bunn, supra [ 283 N.C. 444 ], 196 S.E.2d [777] at 786 [1973]; State v. Guiden, supra, 174 N.W.2d at 490 ; ‘when there is demonstrated a total lack of capacity such that the bodily machine completely fails’, State v. Brant, supra, 252 S.E.2d [901] at 904 [W.Va.1979]; ‘ “incapable of entertaining the specific mental intent” ’, Mock v. State, supra [ 2 Md.App. 771 ], 237 A.2d [811] at 813 [1968]; ‘the condition of intoxication must be so extreme as to suspend all reason’, People v. Hayes, supra [ 37 Ill.App.3d 772 ], 347 N.E.2d [327] at 329 [1976]; ‘ “of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respond”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Lee

3. ““ ‘[U]nless he is so intoxicated that he is utterly devoid of consciousness or awareness of what he is doing’, State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728, 733 (1972) ... ‘when there is demonstrated a total lack of capacity such that the bodily machine completely fails,’ State v. Brant, [ 252 S.E.2d 901, 904 (W.Va.1979)] ... ‘the condition of intoxication must be so extreme as to suspend all reason’, People v. Hayes, [ 37 Ill.App.3d 772 , 347 N.E.2d 327, 329 (1976)].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Cole