State v. DeCastro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] person does not reasonably believe that it is necessary to commit a crime to avoid an imminent harm or evil to himself [or herself] or others when one or more of the following is a fact: (a) A third alternative that did not involve the commission of a crime was reasonably available to the person; (b) The crime committed was not reasonably designed to actually avoid the harm or evil sought to be avoided; or (c) The harm or evil sought to be avoided was not imminent when the person committed the crime.”

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

2. “In order for the "choice of evils" defense to apply, four conditions must be satisfied. First, the defendant must have reasonably believed that there was no legal alternative available to him. Second, the defendant must have reasonably believed that the harm sought to be prevented was imminent or immediate. Third, the defendant's conduct must have been reasonably designed to actually prevent the threat of greater harm. Fourth, the harm sought to be avoided must have been greater than the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.”

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

3. “the necessity or choice of evils justification defense is not applicable when one or both of the following requirements is not satisfied: (1) the defendant reasonably believed that it was necessary to commit the crime to avoid an imminent harm or evil to himself or to others; or (2) the harm or evil sought to be avoided was greater than the harm or evil generated by the crime committed.”

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