7 Md. App. 167 - Parker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 78 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule of law with respect to responsibility for criminal conduct as affected by voluntary intoxication which has been consistently followed by the majority of courts in the United States is substantially that stated by Lord Hale. Regardless of what test is applicable to determining insanity, the majority distinguish between (1) the mental effect of voluntary intoxication which is the immediate result of a particular alcoholic bout; and (2) an alcoholic psychosis resulting from long continued habits of excessive drinking. The first does not excuse responsibility for a criminal act; the second may. In other words, if a person drinks intoxicating liquor and is sane both prior to drinking and after the influences of the intoxicant has worn off, but is insane by the applicable test while under the influence of the intoxicant, he comes under the first category. (Footnote omitted).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Springer v. Collins · Bieber v. People

2. ““ ‘... As “murder in the first degree” is not a crime as such but merely a classification of murder, that the status of a first degree classification may be attained by proof that the murder was committed during the perpetration of a robbery, does not make robbery an essential element of murder and it follows that murder does not necessarily involve robbery.’ 7 Md. App. 199 .” 261 Md. at 577 , 277 A. 2d at 258 .”

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

3. “Section 2.08. Intoxication. (1) Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense. (4) Intoxication which (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (5) Definitions. In this Section unless a different meaning plainly is required: (b) “self-induced intoxication” means intoxication caused by substances which the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime; (c) “pathological intoxication” means intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKinney v. State