Krucheck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under certain circumstances a person is not legally responsible for his criminal conduct. Among those circumstances, Defendant is not legally responsible for criminal conduct if: “1. He was suffering at the time of the criminal conduct from a mental illness or deficiency; and “2. As a result, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. “The term ‘mental deficiency’ means a defect attributable to mental retardation, brain damage and a learning disability. “The phrase ‘mental illness or deficiency’ does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. “The prosecution shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged. “Every Defendant is presumed to be mentally responsible. The Defendant shall have the burden of going forward and proving by the greater weight of evidence that, as a result of mental illness or deficiency he lacked capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. “Thus, if you do not believe that the Defendant has proven by a greater weight of the evidence that he lacked capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law your verdict should not be: Not Guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency excluding responsibility.” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. State · Wilkening v. State

2. “(a) Scope. Except as otherwise provided by statute, in criminal cases, presumptions against an accused, recognized at common law or created by statute, including statutory provisions that certain facts are prima facie evidence of other facts or of guilt, are governed by this rule. [[Image here]] (c) Instructing the Jury. Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury that it may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so. In addition, if the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the court shall instruct the jury that its existence, on all the evidence, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Huff v. State · Eckert v. State

3. “** * * The use of the presumption assists the prosecutor in not having to produce evidence of intention, at least until the presumption is rebutted. But it clearly denies the jury of the opportunity to make up its own minds on the question of intention because there is no probative evidence introduced from which it can base its own finding. In this respect, the presumption instruction is diametrically opposite that of the use of deductions and inferences which the jury may logically and properly draw from facts and cireumstances introduced which point toward intention. - [Citations.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ellison v. State · Hernandez v. State