78 Or. App. 81 - State v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2011
10 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Prosecutor]: "Doctor, you're aware that the state of Oregon must prove after a finding of not responsible because of mental disease or defect that there is an active mental illness in operation to be able to confine a person, are you not? [Doctor]: "Yes. [Prosecutor]: "Consequently, if there is no active mental illness, a defendant is able to petition for release, is he not? [Doctor]: "If there's no active mental illness, yes, I understand he can do that. [Prosecutor]: "And are you aware that this Defendant has been informed of that right? [Doctor]: "I do not know that. [Prosecutor]: "That would be a motive to want to have a proper mental disease or defect defense, would it not? [Doctor]: "If a person really is quite familiar with the law, with the medicine, I can imagine, yes, that would be a motive." Wall, 78 Or.App. at 83-84 , 715 P.2d 96 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The inquiry in this case, suggesting that the state could not keep defendant confined if he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, was very likely to have influenced the jury. It encouraged the jury to make its determination on impermissible grounds * * *. It placed before the jury the spectre that, if it found defendant not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, he would be back in society very soon, perhaps to kill again. It appealed to the fears of the jurors and tended to persuade them to convict rather than risk that defendant would soon be released.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The jury was instructed at the end of the trial: `You must not consider what sentence might be imposed upon the defendant.' That instruction was too little, too late. It did not tell the jury that it was not to consider the disposition of defendant if he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. It was insufficient to dissipate the prejudice.”
1 later decision 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.