8 Md. App. 419 - Millard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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. ““It is the duty of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to commit both crimes. If you do not believe that he had the specific intent with regard to any or both of these crimes, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not he had a specific intent with regard to these two crimes, then you must find him not guilty. * * * si« H« The defense has presented psychological testimony. In order for the defense to prevail, their expert testimony need not convince you that the defendant lacked the specific intent. It need only be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in your mind. Thus, if you find on the basis of the testimony of the defendant’s psychologist that the defendant lacked specific intent, you must find him not guilty. The psychologist was Dr. Donner. Dr. Donner need not persuade you totally or be more convincing. He need only be sufficient to raise the reasonable doubt. Now, after hearing the expert psychological testimony submitted by the defendant, if a reasonable doubt has been raised in your mind with regard to the specific intent of the defendant required to these crimes, then you must find him not guilty of first degree murder and not guilty of robbery. Hs Hí H= H* H* H* The fact that the defendant may have been intoxicated by alcohol or a combination of alcohol and drugs at the time of the commission of the alleged crime may be considered by you as bearing upon his state of mind as to whether or not he had ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 60 Md. App. 69 - Waltermeyer v. State

2. ““We think that the existence of a ‘mental disease or defect’ 2 is first and foremost a medical problem. * * * But an opinion as to the ultimate fact, whether or not the accused is insane under the test prescribed by § 9 (a), in fairness both to the accused and the State, should be reached by a medical diagnosis. Thus the opinion must be made by a medically trained psychiatrist in order to be admissible in evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Md. App. 632 - Colbert v. State