Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 838 N.E.2d 1081 - Specht v. State

Specht v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2023

7 state decisions

40200520102020decided

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

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Sandstrom v. Montana · Zickefoose v. State · Spradlin v. State · Fisher v. State

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

  1. “Before you may convict the Defendant of Count II [attempted murder] the State must have proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) aided, induced or caused Nojir Jef-fries when Nojir Jeffries was engaged ■ (4) in conduct that constituted a substantial [step] toward killing Michael White (5) and both Defendant and Nojir Jeffries acted with a specific intent to kill Michael White.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “An instruction that purports to set forth the elements required for an attempted murder conviction must . . . specifically state that the jury is required to find that the defendant intended to kill the victim. Instructing the jury with a list of elements which suggests that it may convict on a lesser mens rea, such as "knowingly," constitutes error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Indiana Supreme Court has recognized the special need to instruct juries precisely as to the correct level of culpability for attempted murder because of the stringent penalties for that charge and the inherent ambiguity often involved in its proof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.