State v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Atsbeha · State v. Mitchell

2. “1. The defendant lacked the ability to form a specific intent due to a mental disorder not amounting to insanity. 2. The expert is qualified to testify on the subject. 3. The expert personally examines and diagnoses the defendant and is able to testify to an opinion with reasonable medical certainty. 4. The expert’s testimony is based on substantial supporting evidence in the record relating to the defendant and the case, or there must be an offer to prove such evidence. The supporting evidence must accurately reflect the record and cannot consist solely of uncertain estimates or speculation. 5. The cause of the inability to form a specific intent must be a mental disorder, not emotions like jealousy, fear, anger, and hatred. 6. The mental disorder must be causally connected to a lack of specific intent, not just reduced perception, overreaction or other irrelevant mental states. 7. The inability to form a specific intent must occur at a time relevant to the offense. 8. The mental disorder must substantially reduce the probability that the defendant formed the alleged intent. 9. The lack of specific intent may not be inferred from evidence of the mental disorder, and it is insufficient to only give conclusory testimony that a mental disorder caused an inability to form specific intent. The opinion must contain an explanation of how the mental disorder had this effect.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Bottrell · 102 Wash. App. 21 - State v. Mitchell

3. “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as limited by constitutional requirements or as otherwise provided by statute, by these rules, or by other rules or regulations applicable in the courts of this state. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Atsbeha · State v. Cochran