Bailey v. People’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably People v. Sprouse (1999), Vega v. People (1995)
31 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 United States v. Russell · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Hampton v. United States · 23 Cal. 3d 675 - People v. Barraza
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement official or other person acting under his direction, seeking to obtain evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and the methods used to obtain that evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the acts would be committed by a person who, but for such inducement, would not have conceived of or engaged in conduct of the sort induced. Merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense is not entrapment even though representations or inducements calculated to overcome the offender’s fear of detection are used.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A person may not be convicted of an offense, other than a class 1 felony, based upon conduct in which he engaged because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been unable to resist. This defense is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is foreseeable that he will be subjected to such force or threatened use thereof."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For [choice of evils] to be available here, it must first be shown that defendant's conduct was necessitated by a specific and imminent threat of injury to his person under cireumstances which left him no reasonable and viable alternative other than the violation of the law for which he stands charged. [[Image here]] Put simply, the threat to defendant's person must be so definite, specific, and imminent as to rise beyond mere speculation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Speer · People v. Auman
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.