State v. Dunten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even though proof of Dunten's intoxication may be a cornerstone of the state's proof of her culpable mental state in the homicide case, intoxication is not an essential element of the murder charge, as it is in the case of DWI. Moreover, proof that Dunten was driving shortly before and af ter the homicide has virtually no bearing on the murder charge. Assuming a causal relationship existed between Dunten's intoxication and her decision to shoot her husband, it seems clear that no similar relationship exists with regard to the DWI charge{[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Baker · Pitka v. State

2. “Dunten's case involves two charges that are related almost exclusively by their temporal proximity. The statutory elements of the two offenses are entirely different. The homicide charge is not causally related to the earlier DWI charge. The evidence necessary to establish the initial charge of DWI certainly differs significantly from that which would be necessary to establish the subsequent charge of second-degree murder.”

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

3. “[Separate charges [do not] arise from the same criminal episode merely because they occurred simultaneously or at closely related times.... [Slome additional [factor]either a causal link or a close evidentiary or elemental nexus-[is needed to justify] the finding of a single criminal episode.”

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