People v. Herrera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “evidence of his or her mental condition introduced by the defendant to show incapacity to form a culpable mental state”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Bondurant · People v. Welsh

2. “[Subsections (1)(a) and (1.5)(a)] provide essentially the same protection: evidence first acquired from a defendant during court-ordered examinations may only be used at trial to establish the defendant's capacity to form the mental state at issue. While we acknowledge that § 16-8-107(1.5)(a), unlike § 16-8-107(1)(a), does not contain specific language stating that such evidence may be considered "only as bearing upon the question of capacity to form a culpable mental state," nevertheless, whether the subsection specifically refers to "capacity" is not conclusive. The reference in § 16-8-107(1.5)(a) to issues raised by the insanity plea relates to the defendant's "mental condition," and is, in our view, equivalent to the reference in § 16-8-107(1)(a) to a defendant's "capacity to form a culpable mental state." To the extent these two subsections could be given an alternative construction, the legislative history supports our interpretation. Section 16-8-107(1)(a) was originally applicable to the former affirmative defense of impaired mental condition. When that defense was incorporated into the insanity defense, see § 16-8-101.3, C.R.S. 2003, testimony before the General Assembly noted that § 16-8-107(1.5)(a) simply restated former law providing that any communications were admissible only as to issues raised by an insanity plea See Hearings on H.B. 96-1145 before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 60th General Assembly, Second Session (Jan. 16 & 24, 1996). So constru”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Grenier · People v. Marko

3. “the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated by a court-ordered mental examination when the information obtained therefrom is admitted only on the issue of mental condition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Bondurant · People v. Herdman