Bowen v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 546 · 1987
Citation profile
41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
February 1999
most recently cited
37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Rose v. Clark · Francis v. Franklin
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he jury’s rejection of his plea does not mean it found that the defendant was totally free of mental infirmity or that his capacity to formulate a specific intent was the same as that of a normal or average person. The prosecution must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed the intent necessary to convict him of murder.... The defendant’s burden of proving insanity as a defense, does not impose the burden of proving lack of the required intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dick v. Kemp · Godfrey v. Kemp“In applying harmless error analysis to Sandstrom violations, this Court has identified two situations where the harmless error doctrine can be invoked: (1) where the erroneous instruction was applied to an element of the crime that was not at issue in the trial, or (2) where the evidence as to defendant's guilt was overwhelming. [citations omitted]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jones v. Kemp · House v. Lavoie“The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person’s will, but that presumption may be rebutted. A person of sound mind and discretion is pre sumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, but likewise, this presumption may be rebutted .... one voluntarily under the influence of alcohol is presumed to intend the legitimate consequences of his act, and the question is whether he intended the consequences of the act. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dick v. Kemp
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.