Steve v. State’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. “[w]hat is essential is not an awareness that a given conduct is a “wrongdoing” in the sense that it is proscribed by law, but rather, an awareness that one is committing the specific acts which are defined by law as a “wrongdoing”. It is ... no defense that one was not aware his acts were wrong in the sense that they were proscribed by law. So long as one acts intentionally, with cognizance of his behavior, he acts with the requisite awareness of wrongdoing. In the words of Justice Holmes: If a man intentionally adopts certain conduct in certain circumstances known to him, and that conduct is forbidden by the law under those circumstances, he intentionally breaks the law in the only sense in which the law ever considers intent. Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 257 , 27 S.Ct. 600, 602 , 51 L.Ed. 1047, 1053 (1907).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kinney v. State

2. “[the] burden of proof [on this factor] is not constitutionally compelled but can be selected on policy grounds. See Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) (the defendant can be made to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) (the defendant can be made to prove heat of passion by a preponderance of the evidence); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952) (the defendant can be made to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Waterman v. State

3. “[I]f the defendant convinces an appellate court that the trial court adopted an erroneous definition of the offense or misallo-cated the burden of proof, this conclusion necessarily undermines the assumption that the government had its fair day in court. We can not know what evidence the State might have presented at [the defendant's] trial if it had known [the true elements of the offense or had known that] the State bore the burden of proof on the [disputed] issue.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. West v. State