State v. Balanza’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard of review for a trial court's issuance or refusal of a jury instruction is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Haili · Stanford Carr Development v. Unity House

2. “It is a defense to Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree that the defendant was merely acting as the procuring agent for the buyer. A person who acts merely as a procuring agent for the buyer is a principal in the purchase, not the sale, and, therefore, can be held liable only to the extent that the purchaser is held liable. If you find that the defendant was merely acting as the procuring agent for the buyer, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second degree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Davalos

3. “Under the evidence adduced in Kim and Reed , a reasonable juror could have found that the defendants were, at a minimum, acting on behalf of the sellers. However in the present case, Balanza did not participate in the negotiation of the purchase price and quantity, nor did he come into physical contact with the money or the cocaine. Under these circumstances, the procuring agent defense should have been available to him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Davalos