State v. Tuttle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person is not guilty of an offense when he engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him or a third person, which force or threatened force a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would not have resisted.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Ott

2. “if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sanders · 2015 UT App 234 - State v. Maama

3. ““We find that the importation of this common law requirement into the statute also was proper and consistent with the statute’s purpose. The law recognizes that a defendant faced with a serious threat of bodily harm who has no alternative but escape should not, in all fairness, be convicted of a crime for that action. However, while a defendant may be forced to escape a specific threat, the defense does not give an escaped convict a license to remain indefinitely at large. The compulsion defense is certainly not a grant of amnesty. Once the coercion justifying the escape disappears, there is no policy reason to justify the convict in remaining at large.” State v. Tuttle, 730 P.2d at 635 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Kan. App. 2d 527 - State v. Pichon