98 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. McCullum’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
226 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 234 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably State v. Pirtle (1995), 120 Wash. 2d 631 - State v. Benn (1993)
226 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York
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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, . . . when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer ... and there is imminent danger of that design being accomplished; or (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer ....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * While we continue to believe specific burden of proof instructions technically are not necessary, it may be preferable to do so for the sake of clarity. Simply setting forth the elements of the crime without explanation of how self-defense relates to those elements may, itself, cause a jury some confusion as to where the burden of proof lies. Without a clear instruction on the subject, the potential for misinterpretation is simply too great. “We think the best policy regarding such specific jury instructions is summarized in Notaro v. United States, 363 F.2d 169, 175 (9th Cir.1966): “ ‘The desire of a careful judge to avoid language which to him may seem unnecessarily repetitive should yield to the paramount requirement that the jury in a criminal case be guided by instructions framed in language which is unmistakably clear. * * *’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.