State v. Kindvall’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 1990 · most notably Commonwealth v. Kostka (1976), State v. McBride (1980)
37 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. Nelson · State Ex Rel. Barnes v. Behan · State v. Waugh · State v. Buffalo Chief · State v. Gayton
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]n intention, purpose or determination to kill or take the life of the person killed, distinctly formed and existing in the mind of the perpetrator before committing the act resulting in the death of the person killed. A statute of this State provides that a premeditated design to effect death sufficient to constitute murder may be formed instantly before committing the act by which it is carried into execution. It is further provided that such design to effect death may be inferred from the fact of killing unless the circumstances raise a reasonable doubt whether such design existed. Such an inference is nothing more than a permissible deduction from the evidence and it is for the jury to determine whether or not such an inference is to be made in view of all the facts and circumstances shown.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Marshall“While the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was mentally capable of the criminal intent required to constitute the crime charged, it is not necessary for the state in the first instance to prove the sanity of the accused. State v. Waugh, 80 S.D. 503 , 127 N.W.2d 429 [1964]. As held in that case sanity and criminal responsibility are rebuttably presumed. Evidence of the contrary is required to make an issue, (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Closs“In addition to the opinion evidence of experts and laymen, a defendant’s mental condition may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Mental Disorders as a Criminal Defense—Weihofen, p. 312. The acts, conduct and declarations of the defendant, both prior and subsequent to the act charged, as well as at the time of its commission, are admissible to show his mental condition at the time of the act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Romero
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.