State v. Iverson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant cites as error the refusal to give his requested instruction No. 5. Instruction No. 13 above quoted substantially covers it except that defendant’s requested instruction states the presumption of sanity ‘may be overcome by evidence tending to prove insanity existed at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. When such evidence is introduced, then the presumption of sanity ceases.’ The court’s instruction is to the effect the presumption of sanity exists ‘until evidence is presented sufficient to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused.’ (Emphasis added.) “The court’s instruction appears to follow more closely the rule in State v. Tharp, 48 Idaho 636 , 284 P. 201 , and State v. Shuff, 9 Idaho 115 , 72 P. 664 , 670: “ ‘The defendant on his own motion brings the question of insanity into the case, and it devolves upon him to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors * * *.’ “The jury knew from instructions Nos. 13 and 14 and all the other instructions that if a reasonable doubt was cast on the presumption of sanity, that presumption no longer prevailed, and the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt then rested on the state.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Daniels