Manning v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Gary Leroy Profitt v. George R. Waldron, Warden (1987), Arnold v. State (1993)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 Almanza v. State · Morris v. Gressette · United States v. Makris · Graham v. State · Brandon 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong. The term “mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct. The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the conduct charged the defendant was sane; that is, that he was not suffering from a severe mental disease or defect rendering him unable to know that his conduct was wrong. Therefore, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense of aggravated sexual assault as alleged in the indictment, or the lesser included offense of aggravated assault as herein-before charged, but you further find, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that at the time of the conduct charged, [appellant], as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “not guilty by reason of insanity”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riley v. State · Riley v. State“(a) A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. (b) A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aragon v. State
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.