Paul v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2010
22 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 82 Ill. 2d 546 - People v. Lockett · United States v. Burks · Brooke v. United States · State v. Spaulding · State v. Millett
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The burden to produce some evidence of self-defense is not ... a heavy one; this standard is satisfied when self-defense has fairly been called into is-sue_ A jury question will be presented and an instruction required if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the accused, might arguably lead a juror to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well recognized that the burden is on the defendant to produce some evidence in support of a claim of self-defense before he will be entitled to a jury instruction. Bangs v. State, 608 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1980); Toomey v. State, 581 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Alaska 1978); Folger v. State, 648 P.2d 111 (Alaska App.1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“where there is some evidence that the defendant acted to defend himself, but no evidence of imminent peril. An example of circumstances under which self-defense instructions might be denied based on lack of imminent peril may be found in “battered wife syndrome” homicides. Typically, these cases involve a battered wife who kills her husband in his sleep. Although in such instances there is commonly ample evidence to support a finding that the killing was motivated by fear and that the fear was as real and as urgent at the time of the killing as it was when the husband was awake and actually capable of immediate physical abuse, cases have uniformly refused to apply self-defense to this category of crime. The basis of the refusal has been lack of an immediate threat of harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Xi Van Ha v. State
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.