People v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 52 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[tjhat the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause him to be dangerous either to himself or others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future, and is capable of distinguishing right from wrong and has substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. 5”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. Kort · People v. Gilliland

2. ““Section 16-8-105(2) provides that ‘[e]very person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.’ See People v. Kernanen, 178 Colo. 234 , 497 P.2d 8 (1972); People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, [ 165 Colo. 253 , 439 P.2d 741 (1968)]; Castro v. People, 140 Colo. 493 , 346 P.2d 1020 (1959); Leick v. People [ 136 Colo. 535 , 322 P.2d 674 (1958)], supra. In one sense an adjudication of insanity represents a judicial determination that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.... “In another sense, however, particularly in view of the statutory presumption of sanity in the first instance, it is not unreasonable to infer from an insanity adjudication that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he engaged in the proscribed conduct. A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity generally will be based on some evidence of insanity sufficient to overcome the contrary presumption. See People v. Kernanen, supra. Nor is it unfair or unreasonable to believe that the disorder iikely is a continuing one since mental illness for the most part is a long lasting phenomenon. See, e.g., Weihofen, Institutional Treatment of Persons Acquitted by Reason of Insanity, 38 Tex.L.Rev. 849 (1960); Note, Commitment Following Acquittal by Reason of Insanity and the Equal Protection of the Laws, 116 U.Pa.L.Rev. 924, 935 (1968); Comment, C”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Giles · Glatz v. Kort

3. “is suffering from a mental disease or defect which renders him incapable of understanding the nature and course of the proceedings against him or of participating or assisting in his defense or cooperating with his defense counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cordova v. People · Coolbroth v. DIST. COURT OF 17TH JUD. D.