State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he emotional disturbance defense admits that the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of another or attempted to do so, and therefore, that the defendant possessed the requisite “self-control” to commit or attempt murder. Commission of such acts is, in effect, the factual and legal prerequisite for raising such a defense, and thus not the basis for defeating it. As the defense argues, “[i]f this [ (self control in committing the acts) ] were the criteria for assessing [the emotional disturbance defense,] then no defendant would be entitled to [its] benefit ... since the mitigation presumes the wherewithal to have committed a murder.” The question is not whether the defendant had sufficient self-control at the time to commit murder or to attempt it, but whether, when the acts were committed, the defendant was influenced by the requisite mental and emotional disturbance. As [Perez] indicates, he does not dispute the relevance of “all aspects of a defendant’s conduct,” but that' the prejudice inherent in the instruction was the failure to provide “any ... explanation [of] ... ‘self[-] control’ ” as it related to the defense. We believe that an instruction that merely singles out “self-control” for consideration by the jury is prejudicially insufficient and misleading. We see little to be accomplished, then, in adding an instruction on “self-control” to a standard instruction which already embodies the principle that the “weakening of self control” is “approxi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perez · State v. Haili

2. “[t]he question of the Defendant's self-control, or the lack of it, at the time of the offense, is a significant factor in deciding whether he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance[ ]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perez · State v. Haili

3. “[ajround the end of June [1996], Nova told [Perez] she wanted to move in with Nani. Although Nova thereafter lived with Nani, she and [Perez] still had sexual relations. [Perez] repeatedly asked Nova to stay the night, but she would reject him, saying, “Oh[,] maybe one of these days.” Nova testified that during the week before the subject incident, [Perez] told her that “a person could only take so much before they [sic] snap.” He told Nova that “he was not afraid to die, and that one day he was going to do something that she would remember for the rest of her life.” [Perez] testified [that] he envisioned shooting himself in front of Nova. Nova related that[,] on Thursday, July 25, 1996, the day before the incident, she went to [Perez]’s home to check on him. According to Nova, Defendant looked “different, more quiet[,]” and appeared to be “kind of fed up” with asking Nova to come home. That evening, while Nova was at a party with her co-workers, Defendant paged her three o[r] four times, but Nova did not respond because she knew he was upset. [Perez] testified that after taking him to cash his check on the Monday before the incident, Nova asked [Perez] for money. He asked Nova about the balance in their joint bank account and she told him there was $300 in the account. He gave her $100, but told her that he needed it returned so he could pay the rent. However, Nova did not come by with the money. On Thursday, [Perez] went to the bank to withdraw money from the account but le”

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