Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 Wis. 2d 160 - Ross v. State

61 Wis. 2d 160 - Ross v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
5
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Crisantos (Arriagas) (1986), State v. Faulkner (1984)

5 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

300197319801990200020102020decided

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 Stevenson v. United States · 47 Wis. 2d 668 - State v. Bergenthal · Hempton v. State · Brook v. State · 51 Wis. 2d 557 - State v. Anderson

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

  1. “[T]he evidence is to be viewed in the most favorable light it will 'reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.' This test does not call for a weighing of the evidence by the trial judge. He is merely obliged to examine the evidence to determine whether the proposed instruction is based upon mere conjecture and whether, if a verdict were returned on the lesser included offense, he would be obliged to set it aside.... To instruct on the lesser included offense, ... the evidence of the lesser included offense must be relevant and appreciable; and as considered most favorably to the defendant, the inclusion of the instruction must not be unreasonable.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Tjhere must be a reasonable ground in the evidence for acquittal on the greater charge and conviction on the lesser charge .... The key word is “reasonable.” The rule does not suggest some near automatic inclusion of all lesser but included offenses as additional options to a jury. Only if “under a different, but reasonable view,” the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt of the lower degree and also leave a reasonable doubt as to some particular element included in the higher degree but not the lower, should the lesser crime be submitted to the jury . . . Ross v. State, 61 Wis.2d 160, 169 , 211 N.W.2d 827 (1973).”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““To give an instruction on a lesser included offense when the commission of that lesser included offense is not reasonably shown by the evidence is no favor to a defendant. The inclusion of a doubtful lesser included offense is likely to result in a jury’s compromise to the detriment of the defendant. Numerous cases arise in which the proper alternative for the jury is either the conviction on the major crime or a complete acquittal. To superfluously add to the verdict a lesser included offense may well in some cases result in the defendant being found guilty of that offense when a verdict of not guilty should have been returned.””
    4 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.