Jackson v. Superior Court’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
1 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 703 - People v. Sedeno (1974), 25 Cal. 3d 668 - People v. Flannel (1979)
1 district · 48 state decisions
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 27 Cal. 2d 164 - People v. Bender · 59 Cal. 2d 503 - People v. Ketchel · 35 Cal. 2d 49 - Lorenson v. Superior Court · 57 Cal. 2d 276 - Perry v. Superior Court · In Re James
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.
““These rules of substantive law are implemented by Penal Code section 1105, which provides that ‘Upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse it, devolves upon him, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution tends to show that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that the defendant was justifiable or excusable.’ It is true that this statute ‘does not place on a defendant the burden of persuasion, but merely declares a rule of procedure that imposes on him a duty of going forward with evidence of mitigating circumstances.’ [Citation.] Yet by the same token if the defendant fails to discharge the latter duty to the point of raising a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, the presumption of malice will operate and the homicide will be deemed ‘malicious and an act of murder. ’ ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Salcido“1 ‘ To begin with, even at trial the necessary element of malice may be inferred from the circumstances of the homicide. Penal Code section 188 declares that ‘Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.’ (Italics added.) Prom the emphasized language the rule is derived that ‘When the killing is proved to have been committed by the defendant, and nothing further is shown, the presumption of law is that it was malicious and an act of murder ■ but in such a case the verdict should be murder of the second degree, and not murder of the first degree.’ ” (Jackson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 521, 525-526 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Salcido“Evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction.... An information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it. [Citations.]”
1 later decision 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.