Butler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Probation is a favor granted by the State, not a right to which a defendant is entitled. Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d 64, 66 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). A probationer faced with a petition to revoke his probation is not entitled to the full panoply of rights he enjoyed before the conviction. Id. For instance, the rules of evidence do not apply in a revocation proceeding, and the State need prove an alleged violation of probation by only a preponderance of the evidence. Id. A defendant is entitled to certain due process protections before the revocation of his probation. Id. One of these protections is the right to counsel. Id.; see also Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3(e) ("The person [in a revocation proceeding] is entitled to confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel."). When a defendant proceeds without the benefit of counsel, the record must reflect that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d at 66 . That is, the trial court must determine the defendant's competency to represent himself and establish a record of the waiver. Id. "There are no magie words a judge must utter to ensure a defendant adequately appreciates the nature of the situation." Kubsch v. State, 866 N.E.2d 726, 736 (Ind.2007), reh'g denied. "Rather, determining if a defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent depends on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timothy Hammerlund v. State of Indiana

2. “We believe that a probationer who chooses to admit his probation violation places himself in a situation similar to that of a defendant who chooses to plead guilty to eriminal charges. Neither person is in danger of "conviction" at the hands of the State. It is unnecessary to warn such a person of the pitfalls of self-representation, for those pitfalls exist only when he is confronted with prose-cutorial activity which is designed to establish his culpability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timothy Hammerlund v. State of Indiana