Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1992
1 district · 7 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. Busic · Christie v. State · Elisovsky v. State · Hartley v. State · Rice v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial judge is required to give a lesser-included offense instruction only in the event that there is a factual dispute as to an element of the greater offense so that the jury could rationally acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser offense. Rice v. State, 589 P.2d 419, 420 (Alaska 1979). However, the “decision whether there is enough evidence to justify a lesser offense charge rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” United States v. Busic, 592 F.2d 13, 25 (2d Cir.1978). In the instant case, we believe that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding that there was insufficient evidence to justify the jury in concluding that Johnson attempted to coerce M.L.H. to have sexual contact with him by express or implied threats but that Johnson did not succeed in having sexual contact with M.L.H. That certainly was not Johnson’s testimony and he never indicated that he wished to argue that theory to the jury. That theory would, of course, be inconsistent with his defense. We think the trial judge could reasonably conclude that there was insufficient evidence to justify charging the jury on the offense of attempted sexual assault in the second degree and that giving such a charge could confuse the jury about the relevant issues in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cavanaugh v. State“(52) "[S]exual contact” means (A) the intentional touching, directly or through clothing, by the defendant of the victim’s genitals, anus, or female breast; or (B) the defendant’s intentionally causing the victim to touch, directly or through clothing, the defendant’s or victim's genitals, anus, or female breast[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cavanaugh 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.