Raines v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘This court’s power to deal with plain error is one to be exercised sparingly and with caution because the plain error rule represents a departure from a presupposition of the adversary system — that a party must look to his or her counsel for protection and bear the cost of counsel’s mistakes .... Nevertheless, where plain error has been committed and substantial rights have been affected thereby, the error may be noticed even though it was not brought to the attention of the trial court.’”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eberly · State v. Loa

2. “INSTRUCTION NO. 24 Justifiable use of force in defense of another person is a defense to the charge of Murder in the Second Degree. The burden is on the prosecution to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not justifiable. If the prosecution does not meet its burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty. The use of force upon or toward another person is justified to protect a third person when: (1) Under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, Bridgette Fleming or Josh LaCroix would have been justified in using such force to protect himself or herself; and (2) The defendant reasonably believed that his intervention was immediately necessary to protect Bridgette Fleming or Josh LaCroix. The reasonableness of the defendant's belief that the use of such protective force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as the defendant reasonably believed them to be. Bridgette Fleming and Josh LaCroix would have been justified in using deadly force upon or toward Richard Rabellizsa if they reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself or herself on the present occasion against death, serious bodily injury or rape. The use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use ”

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

3. “1[.J That the defendant caused the death of another person ... by slashing him with a sharp instrument; [and] 2[.] that the defendant did so either intentionally or knowingly. If you find that the offense of murder has been proved from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then consider whether the defendant is guilty of the reduced offense of manslaughter. In a prosecution for murder it is a defense which redtices the offense to manslaughter that the defendant was, at the time he caused the death of the other person, under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation. [[Image here]] The reasonableness of the explanation shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be. Under [Hawai‘iJ lawfj the laivful use of force to protect oneself is a complete justification for conduct which would otherwise be criminal. The justification of self defense is a complete defense to murder and is also a complete defense to manslaughter. [[Image here]] You must consider the reasonableness of the accused’s belief that he had to use deadly force to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury from the standpoint of a reasonable person placed in the position of the accused. [[Image here]] If you as members of the jury find that any evidence of self defense has been raised, then the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not”

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