State v. Erwin’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Montana v. Egelhoff (1996), State v. Brown (1995)
2 federal appellate · 65 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Rose v. Clark · Francis v. Franklin · Boyde v. California
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Psychosis’ and ‘insanity’ are synonymous ... and ‘insanity’ is to be equated to the incapacity of distinguishing right from wrong. The right-wrong insanity text attributed to M’Naghten case ... has been applied to defenses of drug addiction in like manner as applied to insanity resulting from other causes. While it must be recognized that a drug addiction without psychosis is not a defense ..., a mental disease or defect which results in insanity or the inability to distinguish right from wrong is still a defense although the disease or defect had its origin and was nurtured into legal irresponsibility through drug abuse or addiction. Stated differently: If a psychosis exists by reason of defendant’s inability to tell right from wrong or inability to know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct or incapacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law (§ 552.030), how or why the mental disease or defect arose should be of no moment, (citations omitted)”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Taylor · Mouse v. State“You are instructed that an intoxicated condition from alcohol will not relieve a person of responsibility for his conduct.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his ruling shall be applicable only in cases tried in the future and cases now subject to direct appeal where the issue is preserved that [the instruction] violates due process because it relieved the state of its burden of proof as to the required mental state.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Day · State v. Dillon
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.