People v. Janes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 15 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As noted in Instruction ___ [defining extreme indifference murder], a person may be convicted of extreme indifference murder only if he or she acted "under cireumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally." A person does not act "under cireum-stances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally" if he or she acts in reasonable defense of others. The evidence in this case raises the issue of defense of others. Therefore, in deciding whether the defendant acted "under cirenmstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally," you must decide whether the defendant was acting in reasonable defense of others, as that defense is defined in Instruction ___ [defining defense of others]. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted "under cireumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally." To do that, the prosecution must prove, among other things, that the defendant did not act in reasonable defense of others. If you conclude, after considering all the evidence, that the prosecution has failed to prove these matters beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant NOT GUILTY of extreme indifference murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Lara

2. “instruction which stated: To find the defendant not guilty based upon the lawful use of deadly physical force against an intruder, you must find that the victim made a knowingly unlawfal entry into the defendant's apartment. An entry that is uninvited is not necessarily unlawful. This defense is not available if the victim entered the apartment in the good faith belief he was making a lawful entry. Id. at 303 . The supreme éourt found the instruction deficient: Logically, the jury could have concluded that the burden was on the defendant to prove the conditions set forth in [the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Ujaama

3. “It is an affirmative defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder that the Defendant used physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person, that while the defendant was an occupant of a dwelling 1. the other person made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, 2. the defendant had a reasonable belief that the other person had committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, 3. and the defendant reasonably believed the other person might have used any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Phillips