People v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 364 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 370 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "When it appears ... that an instrumentality ... is capable of being used in a 'dangerous or deadly' manner, and it may be fairly inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as a weapon should the circumstances require, ... its character as a 'dangerous or deadly weapon' may be thus established, at least for the purposes of that occasion.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. B.M. (In Re B.M.) · People v. Koback

2. “As the court forcefully stated in People v. Keelin (1955) 136 Cal. App.2d 860, 874 [ 289 P.2d 520 , 56 A.L.R.2d 355 ], `Nevertheless, error is nonetheless error and is no less operative on deliberations of the jury because the erroneous instruction may have been requested by counsel for the defense. After all, it is the life and liberty of the defendant in a case such as this that is at hazard in the trial and there is a continuing duty upon the part of the trial court to see to it that the jury are properly instructed upon all matters pertinent to their decision of the cause.' Accordingly, if defense counsel suggests or accedes to the erroneous instruction because of neglect or mistake we do not find `invited error'; only if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in suggesting, resisting, or acceding to an instruction, do we deem it to nullify the trial court's obligation to instruct in the cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 Cal. 3d 307 - People v. Wickersham

3. “"[A] critical jury issue does arise in a case such as the present in which the defendant employs an instrumentality which in the strict sense of the word does not constitute a dangerous or deadly weapon. The issue then turns on whether the instrumentality was one which, under the control of the perpetrator of the robbery, could be used in a dangerous or deadly manner and whether the perpetrator intended to use it as a weapon. In the absence of an instruction explaining the requisites for a finding that the defendant was `armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon,' the jury could not rationally apply the language of Penal Code section 211a to the facts of this case." ( Id. at pp. 328-329, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 455 P.2d 153 , italics added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Cal. App. 4th 1054 - People v. Sparks