United States v. F.D.L. (Juvenile Male), United States of America v. R.L.R. (Juvenile Male)’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 1113 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2021
14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1112 · 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 5031
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Edwards v. Arizona · Fare v. Michael C. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Johnson v. Righetti
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Boiled down to its essentials, defendant’s defense was that he smoked marijuana given to him at a social gathering by others, but he did not in fact know it contained PCP, which produced an unexpected intoxicating effect. This defense depends on the validity of defendant’s assumptions that the cigarette did not contain PCP and would produce a predictable intoxicating effect. However, ... these assumptions are tested not by defendant’s subjective belief but rather by the standard of a reasonable person. In this regard, it is common knowledge that unlawful street drugs do not come with warranties of purity or quality associated with lawfully acquired drugs such as alcohol. Thus, unlike alcohol, unlawful street drugs are frequently not the substance they purport to be or are contaminated with other substances not apparent to the naked eye. In particular, marijuana is frequently contaminated with PCP or other psychoactive drugs. Indeed, the reported decisions of the California appellate courts provide a ready compilation of cases involving “lacing” or “dusting” of marijuana with PCP. Putting aside the question whether a defendant may be precluded in all circumstances from invoking the absolute defense of involuntary intoxication where he has consumed an unlawful drug, we hold a reasonable person has no right to assume' that a marijuana cigarette furnished to him by others at a social gathering will not contain PCP; nor may such a person assume such a marijuana cigarette will prod”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the defense of involuntary intoxication is similar to that of lack of mental responsibility in that the defense must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, but different in that he need not prove that he suffered a severe mental disease or defect, but rather that he was intoxicated by some substance that results in what amounts to legal insanity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he voluntary use of drugs or alcohol also must be disregarded in determining whether the defendant could appreciate the nature and quality of his acts....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.