97 Wis. 2d 449 - Hoppenrath v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
January 1991
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Huebner v. State · 80 Wis. 2d 402 - State v. Engler · 24 Wis. 2d 262 - State Ex Rel. Neelen v. Lucas · 50 Wis. 2d 408 - State v. Hebard · Hawkins v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In addition, sec. 972.13(1), Stats., provides that a ‘judgment of conviction shall be entered upon a verdict of guilty by the jury, a finding of guilty by the court in cases where a jury is waived, or a plea of guilty or no contest.’ In this case the defendant, Hoppenrath, was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and was, in effect, acquitted, and thus stands unconvicted of any crime. “Furthermore, in sec. 972.13(2), Stats., the legislature has seen fit to direct the courts that upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court shall either ‘impose or withhold sentence and, if the defendant is not fined or imprisoned, the defendant shall be placed on probation. . . .’ In this case the defendant was not sentenced to confinement, fined or placed on probation because these sentencing alternatives are only available to a court after a finding of guilty and are not available after a finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Rather than sentencing the defendant, the trial court in compliance with the statute reviewed the evidence in order to make a finding as to whether the defendant was presently suffering from a mental disease or defect and in need of institutionalized treatment, because he was a danger to himself or to others. Only after an affirmative finding was the defendant committed." (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““971.175 Sequential order of proof. When a defendant couples a plea of not guilty with a plea of not guilty 'by reason of mental disease or defect, there shall be a separation of the issues with a sequential order of proof before the same jury in a continuous trial. The guilt issue shall be heard first and then the issue of the defendant’s mental responsibility. The jury shall be informed of the 2 pleas and that a verdict will be taken upon the plea of not guilty before the introduction of evidence on the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. This section does not apply to cases tried before the court without a jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““808.03 Appeals to the court of appeals. (1) Appeals as op Right. A final judgment or a final order of a circuit court may be appealed as a matter of right to the court of appeals unless otherwise expressly provided by law. A final judgment or final order is a judgment or order entered in accordance with s. 806.06(1) (b) or 807.11(2) or a disposition recorded in docket entries in traffic regulation cases and municipal ordinance violation cases prosecuted in circuit court which disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, whether rendered in an action or special proceeding.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.