State v. Rodrigues’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 33 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is extremely rare and has recently come to the attention of several courts. The trend in these courts is toward examining the sanity of each personality presented in an individual, or at least the personality which allegedly committed the offense. The law adjudges criminal liability of the person according to the person's state of mind at the time of the act; we will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind. Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478 , 304 S.E.2d 561 at 564 (1983). Recent cases dealing with the multiple personality defense have held that it is immaterial whether the defendant was in one state of consciousness or another, so long as in the personality then controlling the behavior, the defendant was conscious and his or her actions were a product of his or her own volition. State v. Darnall, 47 Or. App. 161 , 614 P.2d 120 (1980); State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App.3d 265 , 444 N.E.2d 1071 (1982); and Kirkland, supra . The cases dealing with MPS can be examined in a similar fashion as other defenses of insanity. If a lunatic has lucid intervals of understanding he shall answer for what he does in those intervals as if he had no deficiency. The law governs criminal accountability where at the time of the wrongful act the person had the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Since each personality may or may not be criminally responsible for its acts eac”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 121 Wash. 2d 347 - State v. Wheaton · State v. L.K.

2. “a disorder where there are within one individual, two or more distinct personalities, each of which is dominant at a particular time. Each individual personality is complex and integrated with its own behavior pattern and the personality that is dominant at any particular time determines the individual's behavior. Often there is amnesia on the part of one personality for the existence of the other. [ Id. at 618]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. L.K. · 244 N.J. Super. 261 - State v. LK

3. “Determination of irresponsibility. If the report of the examiners filed pursuant to section 704-404 states that the defendant at the time of the conduct alleged suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect which substantially impaired his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, and the court, after a hearing if a hearing is requested, is satisfied that such impairment was sufficient to exclude responsibility, the court, on motion of the defendant, shall enter judgment of acquittal on the ground of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding responsibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rodrigues v. Hawaii