Swartz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The general rule in reviewing questions involving instructions is that the trial judge is afforded latitude to tailor the instructions to the facts of the case, and reversible error will not be found as long as the instructions when viewed as a whole and in the context of the entire trial fairly and adequately cover the issues." Brown v. State, 817 P.2d 429, 488 (Wyo0.1991) (quoting Scadden v. State, 782 P.2d 10836 , 1058 (Wyo.1987)). The standard of review for a requested-but-refused jury instruction is established by Ofen v. State, 797 P.2d 544 (Wyo.1990) and Thom v. State, 792 P.2d 192 (Wyo.1990). "The refusal to allow an . instruction requested by the defendant when due process requires the defendant's instruction be given is reversible error per se." Oien, 797 P.2d at 549 . "[A] defendant has the right to have instructions on his theory of the case or his theory of defense presented to the jury if the instructions sufficiently inform the jury of the theory or defense and if competent - evidence exists which supports the law expressed in the instructions." Thom, 792 P.2d at 195 . Evidence is competent if a reasonable jury would conclude that it supports the defendant's position, even if, in the opinion of the court, the evidence is weak, inconclusive, or unworthy of belief. Goodman v. State, 573 P.2d 400, 409 (Wyo. 1977). In determining whether evidence is competent to support an instruction on a defense theory of the case, evidence is to be viewed in a light favorable t”

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

2. “Scott's actions fall short of the type of behavior that would amount to an inducement to commit larceny. There is no evidence that Scott or any member of the Gillette Police Department had any contact with Swartz before the car was stolen. Nor is there evidence that Scott or the police implanted the idea of the crime in Swartz' mind. Seott did nothing more than offer Swartz an opportunity to act; an opportunity she grasped forthwith. Because Swartz presented no competent evidence of improper inducement by the government, she was not entitled to have the defense of entrapment submitted to the jury.”

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