State v. Bolin’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2010
23 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Cupp v. Naughten · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Connecticut v. Johnson · United States v. Wharton
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Now, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the culpable mental state of the accused. Culpable mental state means the state of mind of the accused at the time of the offense. This means that you must consider all the evidence to determine the state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense. The state of mind which the State must prove for first degree murder is that the Defendant acted intentionally and with premeditation in killing Ms. Coulter. In this case you have heard evidence that the Defendant might have suffered from a mental defect which could have affected his capacity to form the culpable mental state required to commit a murder in the first degree. If you find from the evidence that the Defendant’s capacity to form a culpable mental state may have been affected, then you must determine beyond a reasonable doubt what the Defendant’s mental state was at the time of the commission of the offense to determine of which, if any, offense he’s guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coulter“For you to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the State must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt: ***** * (2) That the killing was malicious; that is, that the defendant was in the state of mind to do the alleged wrongfully act without legal justification or excuse. If it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was killed, the killing may be inferred to be malicious; however, this inference may be rebutted by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or by both. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Claybrook““In its place juries may be instructed that a permissible inference may or may not be drawn of an elemental fact from proof by the State of a basic fact, 4 but that such inference may be rebutted and the inference places no burden of proof of any kind upon defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martin
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.