Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 699 N.E.2d 252 - Young v. State

Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2017

13 state decisions

70199820002010decided

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 Wright v. State · Champlain v. State · Shelby v. State · Al-Saud v. State · Simpson 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he trial judge must consider whether the evidence provided by both parties creates a serious evidentiary dispute about the element or elements which distinguish the greater from the lesser offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[p]resenting an alibi defense does not automatically bar instructions on a lesser included offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The evidence about Young’s state of mind at the time he fired the shot that killed Korey Roney is both conflicting and obscure.... Though shooting in the direction of numerous people only twenty feet away is obviously “reckless” be havior no matter whether one is in a set or moving position, whether [Young’s] acts are sufficient to show he was aware of a high probability that his act would kill is less certain. While it is [his] mental state when he fired the shot which actually killed Ko-rey that would determine whether he committed murder or reckless homicide, a jury might glean inferences from the larger pattern of shots fired to determine this specific mens rea. Of the estimated six shots fired, one bullet his Korey ..., another was discovered rather far away in a wall of the home next door.... A crime scene specialist was unable to say whether the recovered bullets were fired [randomly] or specifically aimed. Also possibly relevant is the fact that [Young] returned and fired four more shots though all except Korey were inside the home. Korey was prone on the ground during this time but was not shot again. A jury considering these facts could well have found [Young] was acting recklessly but not knowingly when he fired the shot that killed Korey. Firing a handgun towards a group of people only twenty feet away is certainly an act committed in “plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard” of the harm that might result, and a “substantial deviation from acceptable standar”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.