State v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1990
2 federal appellate · 16 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
Relies on State v. Hatley · 40 Cal. App. 2d 115 - People v. Neal · Armijo v. People · United States v. Schneiderman · State v. Moraga
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No. 7 - You are instructed that generally, voluntary intoxication is not of itself a defense to the crime charged in this case. However, when the existence of a particular and specific motive, purpose or intent is a necessary element to constitute a crime, the jury in determining whether or not such motive, purpose or intent existed in the mind of the accused, must take into account the evidence offered to prove that the accused was intoxicated at the time when the crime allegedly was committed. Thus in the crime of aggravated battery, the specific intent to injure is a necessary element of the crime. The defendant may not be found guilty of the crime of aggravated battery unless you can and do find beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent to injure existed in the mind of the defendant at the time when the crime allegedly was committed. It is proper to consider whether the defendant was intoxicated in determining his state of mind at the time the crime allegedly was committed. If you entertain a reasonable doubt that the defendant was unable to form the specific intent required on account of and by reason of intoxication, you must find the defendant not guilty of aggravated battery. (2) The Law Section 40A-3-5, supra, reads: Aggravated battery consists of the unlawful touching or application of force to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crespin
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.