Jansen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that a person acts with intent when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in conduct or to cause the result. Criminal intent is a necessary ingredient of criminal liability, and one charged with criminal conduct must have an awareness or consciousness of wrongdoing. Basic premise of criminal liability is that act alone does not make one guilty unless his mind is also guilty. YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that the necessary elements of the crime of 1st degree murder, you must find from your consideration of all the evidence the following elements: 1. That on or about the 24th day of April [August], 1995, while within Natrona County, State of Wyoming; 2. The Defendant, Daniel Johnson did in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate the abuse of a child under the age of sixteen (16) years; 3. With the intent to inflict physical injury on a child; 4. Kill a human being; 5. Is guilty of murder in the first degree. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant guilty. YOU ARE INSTRUCTED [that] to constitute the crime charged there must be a union of two essential elements, an act forbidden by law and a specific intent. Specific intent means more than ”

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

2. “THE COURT: Well, and I think Instruction 18 covers a situation that we’re dealing with and that is, as reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Farmer, he was pulled over the fence ..., and then he crawled under the car in an effort to protect himself. And while under the car, he then got a knife out and thought this was his chance, and stabbed the guy, and then went back into his home. I mean, he was pulled off of the fence. And as far as the protection of LeiLani and others, it’s already contained in the Instruction Number 17. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would agree, your Honor. The only difference is the protection of the home. The initial episode that started all of this was an attack against the house. Him not — Mr. Farmer not knowing what was going on, went outside — armed himself, went outside for the protection of not only himself, LeiLani, and the home, but he didn’t know who was out there and what they were doing. That’s what started all of this episode, and that’s why we’ve asked for it to begin with. THE COURT: All right. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think that’s different than what you stated in 18. I think 18 does discuss Mr. Farmer and others, but it doesn’t talk about one’s right to protect their home. THE COURT: Okay. And your objection is noted and the Court will decline to give the instruction for two reasons. One is the nature of the defense is, it is already, I believe, set forth in 17, 18, and I think even 19. And here’s the other one, and which is mor”

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

3. “Our test for the sufficiency of the evidence is definitively articulated in Geiger v. State, 859 P.2d 665, 669 (Wyo.1993): Our standard when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence is well settled: “ ‘[T]his court is to examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine if there is sufficient evidence to uphold the verdict.’ ” Dangel v. State, Wyo., 724 P.2d 1145, 1148 (1986), quoting from Aden v. State, Wyo., 717 P.2d 326, 327 (1986). “[I]t is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State * * ⅝ » Broom v. State, Wyo., 695 P.2d 640, 642 (1985) * ⅜ *. Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 487 (Wyo. 1988). See also Glazier v. State, 843 P.2d 1200,1203 (Wyo.1992). This rule is reiterated in Bouwkamp . This standard was adopted so our approach would match that used by federal courts in post-conviction review of state proceedings. Dangel v. State, 724 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Wyo.1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hightower v. State of Wyoming