7 Ohio App. 3d 358 - State v. Snowden’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 935 - People v. Tufunga (1999), 109 Ohio App. 3d 65 - State v. Brumback (1996)
3 federal appellate · 42 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 State v. Bridgeman · State v. Duncan · State v. Swiger · City of Cincinnati v. Epperson · Carter v. Jago
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.
“[m]istake of fact is widely recognized as a defense to specific intent crimes”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The word ‘knowingly’ as used in these instructions imports a knowledge of the existence of the facts that make for the crime charged in this indictment. And, the word ‘knowingly’ requires in its meaning, knowledge of the unlawfulness of the acts performed by the defendant, if indeed any of his acts would otherwise be illegal — that is, would be illegal if performed with such knowledge. “(a) Unless the defendant, Arnold Pinkney, had the required knowledge, as that term has been defined to you, he cannot be guilty of the charge made in this indictment. “(b) In determining whether Arnold Pinkney had the required knowledge the jury must consider whether he acted under mistake of fact regarding whether it was proper for him to supply his signature as the second signature to the check made payable to the Pinkney-Perry Insurance Agency, which check represented payment due that Agency for insurance coverage that the Port Authority was authorized to provide for its officers and directors. “(c) If the defendant had a[n] honest belief arrived at in good faith, and he acted on the basis of the facts as he believed them to be, then he lacked the required knowledge that is an essential element of the crime charged in this indictment, if indeed any act performed by him would have otherwise been unlawful or illegal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“mistake of fact can, in an appropriate circumstance, negate either 'knowingly' or 'purposely.'”
2 later decisions 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.